on Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range

REINTRODUCTION OF THE MEXICAN WOLF WITHIN ITS HISTORIC RANGE IN THE SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES Final Environmental

REINTRODUCTION 0~ THE MEXICAN WOLF WITHIN ITS HISTORIC RANGE IN THE SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior November 1996

Prepared with the assistance of the Center for Wildlife Law, Institute of Public Law, University of New Mexico.

Cover illustration: Brian Cobble

Final Environmental Impact Statement on Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States Lead agency: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Area is used, the net long term effect is projected to be between 760 and 2,000 fewer deer than

Cooperating agencies in preparation of the EIS: Arizona Game and Fish Dept; New Mexico Dep’t of Game and Fish; San Carlos Apache Tribe; U.S. Dept of

would occur if there were no wolves. Densities of coyotes and mountain lions probably will drop in occupied wolf range. The major regional economic impacts will be reductions in the value of ungulate hunting and in hunting expenditures. Some regional economic benefits

Agriculture, APHIS, Animal Damage Control; U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Dep’t of the Army, White Sands Missile Range. States and counties where the Preferred Alternative is located: Arizona: Apache and Greenlee Counties; New Mexico: Catron, *Dofia Ana, Grant, *Lincoln, *Otero, Sierra, and *Socorro Counties. (’ indicates counties thar are only in the Preferred Alternative if the back-up White Sands Wolf Recover-y Area is used.) Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposes to reintroduce a nonessential experimental popularion of Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baikyz] within part of the subspecies’ historic range in the southwestern United States. The endangered Mexican wolf currently is known to exist only in captivity. Under the Preferred Alternative, commencing in 1997 or as soon thereafter as practical, the FWS will gradually release up to 15 pairs or family groups into the Blue Range area of east-central Arizona. If it is determined to be both necessary and feasible, up to five pairs or family groups may be released into the back-up area, the White Sands Missile Range of south-central New Mexico. The objective is ro re-establish 100 wild Mexican wolves distributed over 5,000 mi’ by about the year 2005. The FWS and cooperating agencies will closely monitor, study, and evaluate the reintroduction. They will have authority under a Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule to actively manage the wolves, including preventing dispersal outside the designated wolf recovery areas and moving or removing any wolves causing significant conflicts. The key impacts of the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are as follows. tier the wolf population grows to approximately 100, it is projected to kill between one and 34 cattle annually, mostly calves. A private livestock depredation compensation fund exists. For the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, the net long term effect on wild ungulates is projected to be between 1,200 and 1,900 fewer elk, and between 4,800 and 10,000 fewer deer, than would occur if there were no wolves. If the back-up White Sands Wolf

are expected from increases in tourism and in nonhunting recreation associated with the wolf. Limited minor land use restrictions may be imposed around occupied release pens, dens, and rendezvous sites, on public lands only, as necessary to prevent disturbance of the wolves. The use of M-44s and choking neck snares in occupied wolf range will be restricted. If the White Sands Missile Range is used, some inconvenience, but no major conflicts with military or testing uses, are expected from wolf reintroduction. The FEIS also analyses potential impacts of three alternatives to the Preferred Alternative: 1) reintroduction of nonessential experimental wolves limited to significantly smaller recovery areas, 2) reintroduction of wolves, in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area only, with full “endangered” status under the Endangered Species Act and no restriction of wolf dispersal by managers, and 3) a “No Action” alternative that considers the speculative possibility of natural recolonization of wolves from Mexico into southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and Big Bend National Park in Texas. The FEIS will be given to decision makers in the FWS and Department of Interior for a decision. A Notice of Availability of the FEIS will be published in the Federal Register. A Record of Decision can be approved 30 days afier publication of the Notice of Availability. Any decision on Mexican wolf recovery in the southwestern United States will be well publicized. Send information requests to: David R. Parsons, Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PO. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87 103.

(Date) Nancy Kaufman Regional Director, Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Final Environmental Impact Statement - Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States Summary

public comment periods following the meetings resulted in 1,324 written comments, which the FWS compiled and analyzed. The seven main areas of public concern related to: 1) the FWS’s planning of the Proposed Action and the alternatives to it; 2) impacts of wolf depredation on livestock; 3) economic impacts; 4) ecological and biological impacts of wolf recovery; 5) the viability of the captive Mexican wolf population; 6) impacts on wildlife management; and 7) philosophical and ethical concerns. The interagency Mexican Wolf EIS Interdisciplinary Team, which oversaw the writing of the EIS, considered these issues as well as additional issues. The DEIS was prepared between 1993 and 1995; it was released in June 1995. The public comment period on the DEIS ended more than four months later, on October 3 1. Public review was extensive, with participation by almost 18,000 people or organizations, in a variety of ways. Fourteen public open house meetings were held throughout the potentially affected areas; total registered attendance was 1,186. Three formal public hearings were held in Austin, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; and Socorro, New Mexico; total registered attendance was 95 1. Each written and transcribed oral comment has been reviewed and considered in the preparation of the FEIS. The public comments are on file and available for inspection at the FWS Regional Of&e in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Notable changes from the DEIS to this FEIS are listed below; they largely are in response to comments received on the DEIS or to developments since the DEIS was written. Also, numerous minor corrections, revisions, and updates have been made.

Introduction The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), proposes to reintroduce a nonessential experimental population of Mexican gray wolves (Canis Lupus buikyi) within part of the subspecies’ historic range in the southwestern United States. The endangered Mexican wolf currently is known to exist only in captivity. The FWS has prepared a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on its reintroduction proposal and three alternative approaches to re-establishing the subspecies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This Summary outlines the full FEIS.

Cooperating Agencies in Preparation of the EIS Arizona Game and Fish Dep’t; New Mexico Dep’t of Game and Fish; San Carlos Apache Tribe; U.S. Dept of Agriculture, APHIS, Animal Damage Control; U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Dept of the Army, White Sands Missile Range.

States and Counties Where the Preferred Alternative is Located Arizona: Apache and Greenlee Counties; New Mexico: Catron, *Dona Ana, Grant, *Lincoln, *Otero, Sierra, and *Socorro Counties. (* indicates counties that are potentially affected by the Preferred Alternative only if the back-up White Sands Wolf Recovery Area is used.)

Alternatives

Scoping, Public Review, and Changes to the Draft EIS

.

This FEIS is based on a lengthy period of scoping, preparation, review, and revision of a draft EIS (DEIS). Fo u r p u blic scoping meetings were held in 199 1 and 1992 to obtain public input regarding the FWS’s general proposal to reintroduce Mexican wolves. A total of 838 people attended. In addition, ii

Re-writing of the Proposed Action as the Preferred Alternative (Ah. A), now specifying use of the biologically preferable Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) first, with the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area (WSWRA) as a back-up, only to be used if necessary and feasible and if additional information is available that the deer population can support a wolf population. The specific

Summary

decision criteria in the DEIS regarding whether to use the BRWRA or WSWRA first have been deleted. .

Deletion of the provision for closing backcountry roads.

.

Support for a Citizen Advisory Committee to advise on management.

.

Alt. B now proposes reintroductions in both the BRWRA and WSWRA primary recovery zones at the same time.

.

.

by occurring when and where military or testing activities are scheduled.

Alt. C now proposes fUll-endangered wolf reintroduction into the BRWRA only. The WSWRA is deleted as a potential reintroduction area under Ah. C, largely because the reintroduction objective could be met with releases to just the BRWRA with subsequent unlimited expansion of the reintroduced population. Related discussion of impacts to the WSWRA and the adjacent potential dispersal areas is deleted. Rewording of Alt. D to emphasize the “No Action” aspect and that natural recolonization is very speculative. Costs of this alternative are re-calculated. Less quantification is provided in the impact discussion due to greater emphasis on uncertainty.

.

Clarification that modification of wolf habitat (outside the protection areas for pens, dens, and rendezvous sites) by land uses in the recovery areas would not be considered a “take” of nonessential experimental wolves under ESA sec. 9(a).

.

Apportionment of potential impacts on deer, elk, hunting, and related economic impacts by whether they would occur in Arizona or New Mexico.

.

Discussion of potential impacts on bighorn sheep in the BRWRA.

.

More discussion of potential impacts on the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

.

Revision and more detailed explanation of cost estimates for each alternative in Appendix B.

Updates .

Updated version of Appendix C, the Proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule, as published in the Federal Register.

.

Inclusion of the detailed Public Comment Summary and the Agency Comments on the DEIS, both as part of Chap. 5, and both with FWS responses to the comments.

.

A summary of the DEIS review process, compilation of the numbers of various types of public comments received, and a listing of personnel involved in the public review process.

.

New Mexico League of Women Voters wolf opinion survey results.

.

Impacts from wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone and Central Idaho to date.

Clarifications/Corrections .

More discussion of historic information about wolf depredation on livestock, in Chap. 1 under Reasons for Listing.

.

New or more clear definitions of “problem wolves, ” “rendezvous sites,” and “disturbance-causing land use activities” in the Glossary, Appendix G. The latter definition includes specific activities and types of public access that may not be allowed within a radius of one mile or less around active pens, dens, and rendezvous sites, as well as exemptions, i.e., activities specifically allowed.

.

Deletion of the provision for removing wolves when they are “conflicting with a major land use”; addition of a provision for removing them if they endanger themselves .,. 111

Summary

Background

Drought and management impacts on deer, oryx, and feral horse populations on White Sands Missile Range.

Mexican Gray Wolf Description

Proposed reductions in permitted grazing to Apache National Forest allotments in BRWRA.

The Mexican wolf is the southernmost and one of the smallest subspecies of the North American gray wolf. Adults weigh 50 to 90 lbs., average 4’6” to 5’6” in total length, and reach 26” to 32” in height at the shoulder. Its pelt color varies. The “lobo”-its popular name-is genetically distinct from other wolves and no confirmed population exists outside captivity. It is one of the rarest land mammals in the world. International experts rate recovery of the Mexican wolf subspecies as the highest priority of all gray wolf recovery programs.

Mexican spotted owl recovery in Cumulative Impacts section and discussion on impacts on National Forest management. Status of captive Mexican wolf population and genetics, and revision of taxonomy and historic range sections. More current information on investigations of whether any Mexican wolves remain in the wild in the U.S. or Mexico (none confirmed).

Reasons for Listing Many factors contributed to the Mexican wolf’s demise, but the concerted federal eradication effort in the early 1900s was predominant. Other factors were: commercial and recreational hunting and trapping; kiliing of wolves by game managers on the theory that more game animals would be available for hunters; habitat alteration; and safety concerns, although no documentation exists of Mexican wolf attacks on humans.

New Appendices Appendix J - Update on Yellowstone and Central

Idaho Gray Wolf Reintroductions and Economic Benefits of Wolf Recovery, and Appendix K Response to Mr. Dennis Parker’s Comment on the DEIS.

Reintroduction Procedures

Future Decision Making

All Mexican wolves to be released under Alternatives A, B, and C, below, would come from the certified U.S. captive population of 114 animals (as of March 1996) maintained in 24 zoos, wildlife parks, and other facilities located around the country. The wolves have exhibited no major genetic, physical, or behavioral problems affecting their fitness resulting from captivity. The FWS will move male/female pairs identified as candidates for possible release to its captive wolf management facility on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, north of Socorro, New Mexico. In the event of a decision to proceed with reintroduction, the FWS would select release animals from among the candidate pairs based on reproductive performance, behavioral compatibility, response to the adaptation process, and other factors. Only wolves that are genetically well-represented in the remaining captive population would be used as release stock.

A Notice of Availability of this FEIS is being published in the Federal Register. The FEIS will be given to decision makers in the FWS and Department of Interior. A Record of Decision can be approved 30 days after publication of the Notice of Availability. Any decision on Mexican wolf recovery in the southwestern United States will be well publicized. Send information requests to: David R. Parsons, Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PO. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 8 7 1 0 . 3 .

(I)are) Nar~cy Kaufman

Regional Director, Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

iv

Summary

Alternatives

Reintroduction will occur under management plans that allow dispersal by the new wolf populations from the immediate release areas (“primary recovery zones”) into designated adjacent areas (“secondary recovery zones”) (Fig. 1). However, the FWS and cooperating agencies will not allow the wolves to establish territories outside these wolf recovery area boundaries unless this occurs on private or tribal lands and the land manager does not object. The FWS would attempt to enter into cooperative management agreements with such landowners regarding control of the wolves. If the land manager objects to the presence of wolves on private or tribal lands, field personnel would recapture and relocate the wolves. The FWS and the cooperating agencies will use a flexible “adaptive management” approach based on careful monitoring, research, and evaluation throughout the release phase. This will include adjusting the numbers actually released according to the needs and circumstances at the time. Initially, to reduce the likelihood of wolf dispersal onto the White Mountain Apache and San Carlos Apache reservations to the west, the wolf releases will occur on the eastern side of the BRYVRA primary recovery zone, close to the Arizona/New Mexico border. The FWS will encourage and support the formation of a Citizen Advisory Committee, or similar management oversight body, to assist the FWS and cooperating agencies in responding to citizen concerns. The following future circumstances will be considered in decision-making about using the WSVURA subsequent to initial releases in the BRWRA:

Alternative A (the Preferred Alternative): The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service proposes to reintroduce Mexican wolves, classified as nonessential experimental, into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. Wolves will be released into the primary recovery zone and allowed to disperse into the secondary recovery zone. If feasible and necessary to achieve the recovery objective of 100 wolves, a subsequent reintroduction of wolves into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area will be conducted.

In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce family groups of captive-raised Mexican wolves into the primary recovery zone of the BRWRA (Fig. 1). The FWS will gradually release up to 15 family groups into the BRWRA and later, if necessary and feasible, up to five family groups into the back-up WSWRA (Fig. 1). Reproduction in the wild would increase the populations to approximately the recovery objective. Wolves will be released into the primary recovery zone and allowed to disperse into the secondary recovery zone. The recovery objective of the Preferred Alternative is to re-establish 100 wild wolves distributed over more than 5,000 mi2 by about the year 2005, consistent with the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. The FWS projects that the population will eventually fluctuate near this level as result of natural processes, such as intra-specific aggression and changes in prey abundance and vulnerability, and management actions, such as problem wolf control and translocation. The FWS and its cooperators will monitor, research, evaluate, and actively manage the wolves, including translocating or removing wolves that disperse outside the wolf recovery areas or that cause significant conflicts. A federal regulation will designate the population to be released as experimental and nonessential to the continued existence of the subspecies. This Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule will delineate the precise geographic boundaries (see Box 1) and prescribe the protective measures and management authority that apply. No formal ESA Section 7 consultation would be required regarding potential impacts of land uses on nonessential experimental Mexican wolves, except on National Wildlife Refuges and National Park Service areas. V

.

whether using the WSWRA, in combination with the BRWRA, is necessary to achieve the recovery objective of re-establishing 100 wolves; that is, it would be used if it appears that the initial introduction in the BRWRA will not achieve a total population of 100 wolves,

.

whether, based on future research, it appears that the WSWRA deer herd could support a wolf population that would contribute to meeting the recovery objective, and

.

other future circumstances that could affect the feasibility of using the WSWRA, such as

F i g u r e 1,

Mexican Wolf Geographic Boundaries.

1

ARIZONA

ALBUQUERQUE

EXPERIMENTAL

- - POPULATION

AREA BOUNDARY ‘5

TEXAS

SCALE Ii -MILES

yy--JJ

PRIMARY RECOVEKY

E\m

SECONOARY RECOVERY ZONES

Ej

LCII;I’ES

BIG BEND

POTENTIAL NATURAL RECOLONIZATION (Alternative D Only)

.\ AREAS

NATIONAL PARK

\--l

h ‘--I

//------/ /

..:::. a

Summary

Box 1. Geographic boundaries for Mexican wolf reintroduction (see Fig. 1).

Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area: all of the Apache National Forest and all of the Gila National Forest. BRWRA primary recovery zone: the area within the Apache National Forest bounded on the north by the Apache-Greenlee County line; on the east by the Arizona-New Mexico State line; on the south by the San Francisco River (eastern half) and the southern boundary of the Apache National Forest (western half); and on the west by the Greenlee-Graham County line (San Carlos Apache Reservation boundary). BRWRA secondary recovery zone: the remainder of the BRWRA not in the primary recovery zone.

White Sands Wolf Recovery Area: all of the White Sands Missile Range, the White Sands National Monument, and the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, and the area adjacent and to the west of the Missile Range bounded on the south by the southerly boundary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Jornada Experimental Range and the northern boundary of the New Mexico State University Animal Science Ranch; on the west by the New Mexico Principal Meridian; on the north by the Pedro Armendaris Grant boundary and the SierraSocorro County line; and on the east by the western boundary of the Missile Range. WSWRA primary recovery zone: the area within the White Sands Missile Range bounded on the north by the road from former Cain Ranch Headquarters to Range Road 16, Range Road 16 to its intersection with Range Road 13, Range Road 13 to its intersection with Range Road 7; on the east by Range Road 7; on the

south by U.S. Highway 70; and on the west by the Missile Range boundary. WSWRA secondary recovery zone: the remainder of the WSVVRA not within the primary recovery zone. Mexican wolf experimental population area: the portion of Arizona lying north of Interstate Highway 10 and south of Interstate Highway 40; the portion of New Mexico lying north of Interstate Highway 10 in the

west, north of the New Mexico-Texas boundary in the east, and south of Interstate Highway 40; and that portion of Texas lying north of US Highway 621180 and south of the Texas-New Mexico boundary. the wolf program budget, management concerns, future military uses of the missile range, and so on.

.

No private or tribal land use restrictions will be imposed for wolf recovery without the concurrence of the private owner or tribal government. On public lands, public access and disturbance-causing land use activities may be temporarily restricted within a onemile radius around release pens, and around active dens between March 1 and June 30 and around active wolf rendezvous sites between June 1 and September 30.

.

On public lands allotted for grazing, livestock owners and their designated agents: (1) may harass wolves for purposes of scaring them away from livestock provided the harassment is promptly reported, and (2) may be allowed to take wolves actually engaged in attacking livestock.

The Proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule was published in the Federal Register on May 1, 1996 (pp. 19237-19248). In summary, the Proposed Rule provides: .

No one will be in violation of the ESA for unavoidable and unintentional take of a wolf within the Mexican wolf experimental population area when the take is incidental to a legal activity, such as driving, trapping, and military testing or training activities, and is promptly reported. Anyone may take a wolf in defense of human life.

vii

Summary

.

.

.

.

Permission for private parties to take wolves on public grazing lands must meet all of these conditions: 1) six or more breeding wolf pairs occur in the BRWRA, or three or more breeding wolf pairs occur in the WSWRA (if used); 2) previous livestock loss or injury by wolves has been documented by an authorized FWS, ADC, or state employee and efforts to control the offending wolves have been undertaken but have not succeeded; 3) physical evidence exists that an attack occurred at the time of the take; and 4) the take is promptly reported.

“‘essential experimental” or “endangered” and the FWS does not intend to designate critical habitat for the Mexican wolf. .

Any taking of a wolf contrary to the experimental population rule may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.

Post-release management will follow an interagency cooperative management plan. This will include working with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet the requirements of its Cooperative Reintroduction Plan and working with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. A wolf management team representing the FWS, the State Game and Fish departments, and other cooperating agencies will determine whether particular actions are necessary. The interagency management plan will cover issues such as release pen siting, veterinary management, depredation control, capture and relocation, research, radio tracking, aerial overflights, prey monitoring, and prey habitat management. Field staffwill conduct monitoring and research, trapping, depredation investigation, mortality investigation, control, and other on-theground actions.

On private or tribally-owned land, regardless of location, property owners and livestock owners and their designated agents may harass wolves near livestock, people, buildings, facilities, pets, or other domestic animals at any time and may take wolves attacking livestock under more liberal conditions than those applicable to public grazing lands. That is, such take can occur regardless of the number of recovered wolf pairs in the area and no requirement exists for government agencies to have completed their efforts to take the depredating wolves. However, physical evidence that an attack occurred at the time of the take must be present and the take must be promptly reported.

Alternative B: Reintroduction of Mexican wolves, classified as nonessential experimental, into both the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area and the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area primary recovery zones. Wolves dispersing from the primary recovery zones will be captured and returned to the primary zones or captivity.

Any FWS-authorized person may capture and remove or translocate reintroduced wolves consistent with a FWS-approved management plan or special management measure. These may include wolves that: (1) prey on livestock, (2) attack domestic animals other than livestock on private land, (3) impact game populations in ways which may inhibit further wolf recovery, (4) prey on state-endangered desert bighorn sheep on the White Sands Missile Range (if used), (5) are considered problem wolves, are a nuisance, or endanger themselves by their presence in a military impact area, or (6) are necessary for research.

In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce family groups of captive-raised Mexican wolves into both the BRWRA and the WSWRA primary recovery zones and actively prevent the populations from expanding beyond these zones (Fig. 1). In the BRYVRA primary recovery zone the FWS will release about eight family groups over four years with the goal of reaching a population of 20 wild wolves by 200 1. In the WSWRA primary recovery zone the FWS will release about four family groups over two years with the goal of reaching a population of 14 wild wolves by 1999. The total recovery objective will be 34 wolves.

The FWS does not intend to change the “nonessential experimental” designation to ..

VII1

Summary

The FWS will designate the population as nonessential experimental under the ESA. The FWS will adopt basically the same Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule as under Ah. A, but it would apply to the smaller areas. The FWS and its cooperators will follow the same release, monitoring, and management procedures as under Ah. A, but on a smaller scale due to the smaller areas involved. Control will be accomplished through a combination of aggressive monitoring and management methods to promptly recapture wolves that leave the primary recovery zones. Wolves could be translocated between the two areas as needed.

be takings to protect human life or by special permit “for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species,” 16 USC sec. 1539(a)(l)(A). Land use restrictions could be imposed under this alternative. Restrictions could include limiting the use of predator control methods that might kill or injure wolves, closing roads, modifying livestock grazing, and imposing other protections to limit any jeopardy resulting from human activities. Other federal agencies would be expected to pursue their responsibilities under the ESA to conserve, and not harm, a recolonizing population. This would include managing to maintain and create high quality ungulate and wolf habitat.

Alternative C: Reintroduction of Mexican wolves, classified as endangered, into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area only. Wolves will be released into the primary recovery zone and unlimited dispersal will be allowed. Wolves will receive full protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Alternative D: No Action

Under the No Action alternative, the FWS will take no action other than continuing its present course. It will neither release wolves nor take any other steps to directly ensure Mexican wolf recovery. The FWS will neither adopt an experimental population rule nor designate any wolf recovery areas. The agency will continue to support the captive population objectives established in the SSP Master Plan, but the agency will not support breeding for maximum growth. Based on its current ESA obligations, the FWS would still encourage protection and expansion of wild wolf populations under this alternative, if any were discovered. No evidence exists to indicate a likelihood of natural recolonization in U.S. portions of the historic Mexican wolf range, but the FWS will support continued research on this possibility. Natural recolonization is considered extremely speculative. Based on historical wolf abundance, recent sighting reports alleged to be wolves, proximity to Mexico, and other factors, the most suitable areas for potential natural recolonization by wild wolves probably would be the mountainous parts of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, and Big Bend National Park in southern Texas. This alternative analyzes these three areas. No confirmed sighting reports have come from these areas or from Mexico in recent years. Any wolves that did naturally recolonize would be fully protected as an endangered species in the United States. It would be illegal to harm or harass

In

1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce family groups of captive-raised Mexican wolves under their current full-endangered status into the primary recovery zone of the BRWRA in east-central Arizona, following the same release procedures as under Alt.s A and B. The FWS will gradually release up to 15 family groups into the BRWRA. No releases will occur in the WSWRA. The recovery objective of the alternative is to re-establish 100 wild wolves distributed over more than 5,000 mi2 by about the year 2002, consistent with the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. The FWS and its cooperators will monitor and conduct research on the wolves, but they will not actively manage them. The ESA allows unrestricted dispersal; that is, the FWS will not restrict the population to the designated wolf recovery areas, as under Alternative A, or to the smaller primary recovery zones, as under Alternative B. No attempts will be made to recapture or return wolves with the possible exception of individual depredators. The wolves will have the full protection against “take” by humans provided by the ESA. Anyone who would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” against a Mexican wolf will be violating the ESA. The only exceptions will

ix

Summary

them except under very narrow circumstances authorized by an ESA permit. Land use restrictions could be imposed under this alternative depending on if, and where, wolves occurred. Restrictions could include limiting the use of predator control methods that might kill or injure wolves, closing roads, modifying livestock grazing, and imposing other protections to limit any jeopardy resulting from human activities. Other federal agencies would be expected to pursue their responsibilities under the ESA to conserve, and not harm, a recolonizing population. This would include

managing to maintain and create high quality ungulate and wolf habitat.

Impacts Table 1 summarizes the features of the four alternatives. Table 2 outlines their projected environmental consequences. The FEIS provides detailed explanations of the impacts, descriptions of the methods of impact analysis, and supporting references.

Summary

Table 1. Summary of Mexican wolf re-establishment alternatives. I&Y: BR = Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area; WS = White Sands Wolf Recovery Area. Definite Boundaries Around Recovery Areas?

Endangered Species Act Protection Status

Area Wolf Population Goal

Estimated Area to be Occupied by Wolves (square miles)

YCS

Per cxperimental population rule

RR and WS (if used): Total - 100

HR and WS (if used): Total - 5,000

Per experimental popularioli rule

ws- 14

HR - 20 ‘l‘oral - 34

72.0 13R - 1,000 Total 1 , 7 2 0

Alternative

Description

Areas Analyzed

A (Preferred Alternative)

Nonessential experimental releases allowing dispersal into qccondary r0zovek-y zones; BR first, WS back-up

BR and WS primary and secondary recovery zones

Nonessential experimental releases preventing dispersal froni primary zones

BR and WS primary recover) zones only

Yes

BR only plus likely dispersal areas

No

Endangered

BR - 100-1

BR - >5,000

Southeastern Arizona, Southwestern New Mexico, and Big Bend National Park, Texas

No

Endangered (if wolves

(speculative) SE. Ariz. - 30 SWNM-20 Big Bend NP - 5 Total - 55

(speculative) .\E Ariz. - 1,500 SW NM - 1,000 Big Bend N P - 250 l’otal 2 . 7 5 0

under full ESA protection

li&dscs

No releases; research and support possible nau1ral recolonization

discovered)

ws

(continued below)

Meets 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan’s Population Objective?

Estimated Years to Reach Area Population Goal

A (Preferred Alternative)

B R Yes WS -No ‘fogerher Y e s

BR-9

BR - 35%

ws-3

ws -250/o

B

WS N o BR - No I‘ogether - No

ws-3

ws-30%

BR-5

BR Yes

BR-6

Alternative

c:

D

S E Aria. N o SW NM - No Big Bend NP - No Together - No

Decades (speculative)

Estimated Annual Percentage of Established Population Lost to Control and Other Factors ’

Major Land Use Restrictions

Intensity of Wolf Management and Control

Total Total Estimated Implementation costs2

None

Medium

$7,247x000 (over 14 years)

BR - 40%

None

High

(over 10 years)

RR - 25%

Some possible

Low

Some possible (if wolves discovered)

Low

No estimates

$5,890,000

$5,692,000 (over 10 years) $150,000 to $217,000 per year (period indeterminate)

’ In addition, .tbout one-third of rhe captive-raised wolves thar are released annually are expected to quickly die, disappear, disperse from the recovery area, or to require recapturing for a variety of reasons, and not to become part of the established population. ‘See Appendix B for cost accounting.

xi

Summary

Table 2. Summary of key projected impacts under each alternative. Notes: Chap. 4 provides background for all information summarized here. All impacts in the back-up White Sands Wolf Recovery Area under Alt. A depend on wherhrr the area IL used. ‘I&is table emphasizes quantifiable adverse impacts and is nor a cost-benefit summary. Monetary lo~scs are 111 1994 dollars.

Key: BR = Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area; WS = White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.

Net impact of wolf recovery on wild prey populations (low to high range)’

Alternative

B

Impact on annual hunter take in area (low to high range)’

Annual lost value of hunting (low to high range)l

Annual lost hunter expenditures in region (low to high range)l

Number of cattle killed annually (low to high range)

131~: 4,x00- I (J,OOO fewi:I- deer; 1 ,LOO- 1 ,‘)OO fewer elk

13K: 300-560 fewer deer; i 2O-2OO‘fewer elk

BR: $716,800$ I ,336,600

BK: $579 lOO51,079.;00

UK: l-.34

w s : 1.200-3,000 fewer deer

WS: 1 O-24 fewer deer

w s : $3,000-$7.100

WS: 52,900-$7,000

ws: 0.0 l-O.3

RR: 17(1- 1.9OrI fewer deer; 230. .I50 fewer elk

11R: 57- 1 10 fewer deer: 24-3.5 fewer elk

RR: $123,100$214,800

BK: $58,200PlOl,iOO

131~: 0.0.3-I

w s : 760-2,000

WS: 5-1 1 fewer deer

w s : $1,500-$3,300

WS: $1,500-$3,200

ws: 0

BK: 3,700-8,800 fewer deer: X70-1.700 fewer elk

BR: 240-480 fewer deer; 90-l 50 fewer elk

BR: $582,800$1,119,200

RR: $470,700$902.700

1SK: 1 .)4

not modelled

not modelled (none 111 Big Bend NI’)

not modelled (none in Big Bend N I’)

not modclled (none in Big Bend Nl’)

,101 csrlnlmxi (no11c 111 Big Bend X 1’)

fewer deer

L

r

I II;

/

’ 1,igurcs give11 compare p~cy populatlorls under the wolf reintroduction scenario, at a point 111 rime five years after the wolf population goal fc>r the uea 1s dchievcd, io whdt rhe prey populations .trc projected to he if wolves are nor reintroduced, ‘l‘hese figure> likely overstate the actual losses. Hunterc may not actually hunt less overall because of fewer deer and elk in the wolf recovery areas, but instead rum their .i[tention to \ubstitutc areas or hpccies. Further, deer and elk hunting in Arizona and NKW Mexico are dominaccd by resident hunters. Most octhe mane)’ not spenr by residents as hunrcr expenditures in rhe region probably will be spent in some other sector of rhc state economy. ’ All projected impacts in the porenrl.J natural recolonization areas are speculative.

(continued on next page)

xii

Summary

Table 2. Continued.

Alternative

Value of cattle killed annually (low to high range)*

Economic benefits

BK: $640. $21,61)0

HR: increased recreational use value and expenditures

A (Preferred Ah.)

WS: B 1 O-$200

WS: little impact

Impacts on ADC activities

Impacts on government policies and plans

Impacts on land use and military activities

i mpacts o n rccreatlon

BR: M-44 and neck snare resrrictions; limits on other tools

BR: conflict with

BR: mmor ~CCCSS rcsrrictions near

BK: Increabcd visitation

WS: little impact

WS: limited conflict with local

local ordinances

pens, dens. and rendezvous sites

ordinances

WS: very limited access restrictions; inconvenience I&

WS: little impact

xcurlt)

admlnisrration BR: $20-$600

BR: limited increased rccrcational use value and expenditures

B

UK:

w s :

110

conflict

WS: no impact

WS: no impact

BR: $640. $21,600

BR: increased recreational use value and expenditures

RR: M-44 and neck snare restrictions; limits on other tools

BR: conflict with local ordinances; potential conflict with San Carlos and White Mountain Apaches’ tribal sovereignty

All 3 areas: increased recreational use value and expenditures

All 3 areas: M44 and neck snare restrictions; limits on orher tools

All 3 areas: no conflict

not estimated (none in Big Bend N I’)

’ Livestock losses may be compensated by a private depredation compensation fund.

..

Xl11

BR: minor access restrictions near

BR: limited

pfm, dens, a n d

visiration

Ilrcl-cxd

rendezvous sites

ws: $0

C

D’

BR: limited M-44 and neck snare rest]-ictions; limits 011 other rools

I10 c011f11ct

WS: very limited access restrictions; inconvenience for security admuisr TatIon BR: access restrictions near pens,

WS:

110

Impact

BK: Increased visitation

den&, and rendezvous sites; restrictions on grazing and other activities

All 3 areas: access restrictions near ptm, dens, and rcndezvons sites;

rc,trictions o n grazing and other activities

All 3 areas: irlcl-ca5cd \,lsir;IlioIl

Table of Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~......................... IX x Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~.......................................................................~......................... Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for

Action

l-l Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. .. l-l .. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. l - l l-2 Overview of the Mexican Wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Impact Statement Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 7 l-7 .. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Alternatives and Impact Questions Raised in Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 7 Alternatives and Impact Questions Addressed in this FEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 7 Alternatives and Impact Questions not Addressed in this FEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l- 10 l-12 Permits and Clearances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program ............................................................................................... The Soft Release Approach ................................................................................................................. Selection o f Potential Areas for Releasing Mexican Wolves .............................................................. Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................................................. Actions Associated with the Alternative ........................................................................................... Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... Summary of Alternative A .............................................................................................................. Alternative B ...................................................................................................................................... Actions Associated with the Alternative ......................................................................................... Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... Summary of Alternative B .............................................................................................................. Alternative C ......................................................................................................................................... Actions Associated with the Alternative ......................................................................................... Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... Summary o f Alternative C .............................................................................................................. Alternative D ......................................................................................................................................... Actions Associated with the Alternative ........................................................................................... Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................... Summary of Alternative D ................................................................................................................ Comparison o f the Alternatives ............................................................................................................

2-I 2-l 2-l 2-2 2-5 2-5 2- 16 2-17 2-18 2-16 2-21 2-21 2-21 2- 18 2-23 2-23 2-24 2-21 2-27 2-27 2-27

Chapter 3: Affected Environments Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area ......................................................................................................... Geography ......................................................................................................................................... Climate .............................................................................................................................................. Water.. ................................................................................................................................................ Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................... xiv

3-l 3-l 3-l 3-l 3-4 3-4

Table of Contents

Animals .............................................................................................................................................. Land ownership and management ...................................................................................................... Agency and local government plans and policies ............................................................................... Land development ............................................................................................................................. Livestock grazing ............................................................................................................................... Forestry .............................................................................................................................................. Mining and other natural resource extraction .................................................................................. Public access and recreation .............................................................................................................. Regional economy, employment and population ............................................................................. Likely Dispersal Areas Associated with the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area ..................................... San Carlos and White Mountain Apache Reservations ................................................................... History of wolves ............................................................................................................................ San Carlos Apache Reservation ........................................................................................................ White Mountain Apache Reservation .............................................................................................. Lakeside Ranger District, Sitgreaves National Forest ...................................................................... San Mateo Mountains Unit o f Cibola National Forest.. ................................................................. White Sands Wolf Recovery Area ......................................................................................................... Geography ........................................................................................................................................... Climate ................................................................................................................................................ Water ................................................................................................................................................... Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................ Animals ................................................................................................................................................ Land ownership and management ...................................................................................................... Land development ............................................................................................................................... Livestock grazing ................................................................................................................................. Mining and other natural resource extraction.. .................................................................................. Military activities ................................................................................................................................ Public access and recreation ................................................................................................................ Regional economy, employment and population ............................................................................... White Sands National Monument ....................................................................................................... Jornada Experimental Range ................................................................................................................ The Potential Natural Recolonization Areas ........................................................................................ Southeastern Arizona ........................................................................................................................ Coronado National Forest South of Interstate 10 ......................................................................... Coronado National Memorial ........................................................................................................ Chiricahua National Monument .................................................................................................... Fort Huachuca ................................................................................................................................. Southwestern New Mexico ............................................................................................................... Big Bend National Park ....................................................................................................................

Chapter 4:

3-4 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-l 1 3-l 1 3-12 3-13 3-13 3-14 3-14 3-14 3-16 3-19 3-24 3-25 3-25 3-25 3-27 3-27 3-29 3-29 3-33 3-33 3-35 3-35 3-3 5 3-36 3-36 3-36 3-37 3-38 3-38 3-38 3-45 3-45 3-46 3-47 3-50

Environmental Consequences

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... Consequences of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) ....................................................................... Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area ......................................................................................................... Impacts on wild prey of wolves ....................................................................................................... Impacts on hunting .......................................................................................................................... Impacts on livestock ........................................................................................................................ Impacts on predator control programs ......................................................................................... Impacts on agency, tribal, and local government policies and plans ...........................................

4-l 4-2 4-2 4-2 4-4 4-4 4-10 4-10

Table of Contents

Impacts on land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~..................................................................................................~... 4 - 1 2 4-12 Impacts on recreation .,...........~..................................................................................................~... 4-12 Regional economic impacts ..I.I.......................,..........................................................................~... White Sands Wolf Recovery Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 Impacts on wild prey of wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 15 Impacts on hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 15 4-15 Impacts on livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~...................................................................................................... Impacts on predator control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-I 7 Impacts on agency, tribal, and local government policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17 Impacts on military activities and land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1 7 Impacts on recreation . . . . . . . . ..~..~...................................................................................................... 4 - 1 8 4- 18 Regional economic impacts ..* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Adverse Effects of Alternative A in the BRWRA and the WSWRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19 Short-term and Long-term Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1 9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments o f Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20 Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e-S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20 Consequences of Alternative B . . ..~...................................................................................................... 4-23 Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area Primary Recovery Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 3 Impacts on wild prey of wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23 Impacts on hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.~...................................................................................................... 4-23 4-23 Impacts on livestock . . . . . . . . . . . ..~........................................................................................................ Impacts on predator control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 5 Impacts on agency and local government policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 5 Impacts on land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25 Impacts on recreation . . . . . . . . . ..‘.~...................................................................................................... 4-25 Regional economic impacts . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25 White Sands Wolf Recovery Area Primary Recovery Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27 Impacts on wild prey of wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27 Impacts on hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 7 Impacts on livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28 Impacts on predator control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8 Impacts on agency and local government policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8 Impacts on military activities and land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8 Impacts on recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8 4-28 Regional economic impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Adverse Effects of Alternative B in the BRWRA and WSWRA Primary Recovery Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8 . 4-29 Short-term and Long-term Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...~.............. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 9 Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30 Consequences o f Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30 Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30 Impacts on wild prey of wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-31 Impacts on hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~............. 4-31 Impacts on livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impacts on predator control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~............. 4 - 3 1 Impacts on agency, tribal, and local government policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..“.............4 - 3 1 Impacts on land use . . . . . . . .._............................................................................................... o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33 Impacts on recreation . . . . . . . . . . . ..~...................................................................................................... 4-33

Table of Contents

Regional economic impacts ........................................................................................................... Impacts in Likely Dispersal Areas ................................................................................................. Summary of Adverse Effects of Alternative C .............................................................................. Short-term and Long-term Effects ............................................................................................... Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................................... Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................................ Consequences o f Alternative D ........................................................................................................... Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... The Potential Natural Recolonization Areas .................................................................................... Southeastern Arizona ..................................................................................................................... Southwestern New Mexico ............................................................................................................ Big Bend National Park ................................................................................................................. Summary of Adverse Effects of Alternative D in the Three Potential Natural Recolonization Areas ......................................................................................................... Short-term and Long-term Effects ................................................................................................... Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .............................................................. Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................

4-34 4-34 4-37 4-37 4-38 4-38 4-39 4-39 4-39 4-39 4-41 4-42 4-43 4-43 4-43 4-44

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination Development of the Proposal and Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements ................... Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Sent the DEIS for Review ....................................................... List o f Preparers .................................................................................................................................... Agency, Government, Tribal, and Legislator Comments on the DEIS with Fish and Wildlife Service Responses ........................................................................................ Public Comment Summary with Fish and Wildlife Service Responses ............................................

.5-l 5-2 5-6 5-l 1 5-80

Appendices Appendix A: Mexican Gray Wolf Life History and Ecology.. .......................................................... Appendix B: Projected Costs of Implementing the Alternatives ...................................................... Appendix C: Proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule ............................................ Appendix D: Section 7 Consultation on Proposed Action ............................................................... Appendix E: Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Twelve-Step Procedure for Reestablishment of Nongame and Endangered Species ........................................... Appendix F: Background Information on Livestock Depredation Projections ............................... Appendix G: Glossary ........................................................................................................................

A-l B-l c-1 D-l E-l F-l G-l H-l I-l

Appendix H : Literature Cited.. .......................................................................................................... Appendix I: List of Scientific Names ................................................................................................. Appendix J: Update on Yellowstone and Central Idaho Gray Wolf Reintroductions and Economic Benefits of Wolf Recovery.. ......................................................... J - l Appendix K: Response to Mr. Dennis Parker’s Comment on the DEIS .......................................... K - l

xvii

List of Tables and Boxes Table l-l. Most common questions raised during public scoping

and their treatment in this final environmental impact statement ..I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 8 Table 2- 1. Suitability rankings of candidate areas for releasing

Mexican wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I.~.I...........................*.................................................................................. 2 - 4 Box 2 - l . Geographic boundaries for Mexican wolf reintroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 Table 2-2. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification (Alternative A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 8 Table 2-3. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goals after releases into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification (Alternative A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l 0 Table 2-4. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification with restricted dispersal (Alternative B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1 9 Table 2-5. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification with restricted dispersal (Alternative B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..L.............................................................................................................. 2 - 2 0 Table 2-6. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area with full Endangered Species Act protection (Alternative C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2 2 Table 2-7. Summary of Mexican wolf re-establishment alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2 8 Table 2-8. Summary of key projected impacts under each alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2 9 Table 3-l. Average harvests, numbers of hunters, and success rates

in the general BRWRA area, 1988-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 8 Table 3-2. Approximate predator densities, 1993-94, and total predators taken by ADC, 1987-9 1, in Arizona portion of Apache 3-9 . National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 3-12 Box 3-l. General description of southwestern cattle ranching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3-3. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for Blue Range 3-l 5 . wolf recovery area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... Table 3-4. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for Blue Range wolf recovery area, primary recovery zone only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15 Table 3-5. Game densities on San Carlos Apache Reservation, 3-18 . D.. 1993-94 estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... Table 3-6. San Carlos game permits, harvest, and hunter success for tribal members and non-members, and fee revenue for nonmember permit sales, 1993-94 hunt year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . ~..3-18 Table 3-7. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for the San 3-20 . Carlos Apache Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...~..........0.. Table 3-8. Population estimates, densities, and estimated habitat areas of potential wolf prey species on the White Mountain 3-21 . Apache Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...~..0.......~.. ... xv111

List of Tables and Boxes

Table 3-9. White Mountain Apache Reservation non-member hunting revenues for 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n a........... 0 . . . . n . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..r.. I .,....................... I . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. .-.2 2 Table 3-10. White Mountain Apache Reservation livestock losses

reported to APHIS-ADC, 1990-92 ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....=..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23 Table 3-l 1. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for the White Mountain Apache Reservation . . . . . . . ..“.....................................................~............................................... 3 - 2 4 Table 3-12. Average annual temperatures for White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico ~.......“................~...,................................................................................................. 3 - 2 9 Table 3-13. Population estimates of ungulate prey species for the WSWRA, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=..................................................................................................... 3 - 3 0 Table 3-14. Oryx population estimates for the WSWRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 Table 3-15. Average annual mule deer harvest, White Sands Missile 3-32 . Range, 1989-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... Table 3- 16. Average annual pronghorn and oryx harvest, White Sands Missile Range, 1986-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...“.... 3-33 Table 3-17. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for White Sands . wolf recovery area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 3-37 Table 3-l 8. Number and density of potential wild prey of wolves in Coronado National Forest south of Interstate 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43 Table 3-19. Predator population estimates and densities in Arizona Game and Fish Department management units corresponding to Coronado National Forest south of Interstate 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44 Table 3-20. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for southeastern Arizona potential natural recolonization area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-46 Table 3-21. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for southwestern N e w M e x i c o potential natural recolonization area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5 1 Table 3-22. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for Big Bend National Park potential natural recolonization area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54 Box 4-l. Modelling Mexican wolf impacts on prey populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 Table 4- 1. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after

achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................4 -5 Box 4-2. Calculating Mexican wolf impacts on hunting and associated 4-6 . economic values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ Box 4-3. Projecting rates of Mexican wolf livestock depredation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 Table 4-2. Mean livestock depredation rates from northern 4-8 study areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... Table 4-3. Number and percentage of cattle available projected to be killed annually by Mexican wolves after achievement 4-9 .. of recovery area goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Table 4-4. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Ah. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................4 -9 Table 4-5. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in region five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 13 Table 4-6. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA under 4-16 Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ ............. xix

List of Tables and Boxes

Table 4-7. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs after achievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA under Ah. A. ..~.......‘....,.......................................... 4 - 1 6 Table 4-8. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in region five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the WSW’RA under Alternative A . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 19 Table 4-9. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA primary recovery zone under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24 Table 4-10. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA primary recovery zone under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24 Table 4-l 1. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in region ftve years after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA primary recovery zone 4-26 . under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... Table 4-12. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA primary recovery zone under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27 Table 4-13. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in region five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA primary recovery zone 4-29 . under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... Table 4-14. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWXA under Alternative C .,.......................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32 Table 4-15. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Ah. C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32 Table 4-16. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in region five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Alt. C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34 Table 5-L. How people commented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-83

Table F-l. Low range of estimated annual number of cattle killed after Mexican wolf re-establishment based on comparison with Alberta, Minnesota, and Montana study areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-4 Table F-2. High range of estimated annual number of cattle killed after Mexican wolf re-establishment based on comparison with Alberta, Minnesota, and Montana study areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-5

xx

List of Figures Fig. 1. Mexican Wolf Geographic Boundaries . ..*. _ . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘.... -.< . . . . . . . . . . L. . ..< . . . . . . . . . vi Fig. l - l . Approximate historic range of the Mexican wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 4 Fig. l-2. Wolves reported taken by federal and state cooperative hunters in Arizona and New Mexico, fiscal years 1916 through 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~.O.........................................................................~................................ l - 6 Fig. 2-l. Fig. 2-2. Fig. 2-3. Fig. 2-4. Fig. 2-5.

Five candidate areas for releasing Mexican wolves ........................................................................ 2-3 Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.. ................................................................................................. 2-5 2-9 White Sands Wolf Recovery Area ................................................................................................. ......................................................................................... Mexican wolf geographic boundaries 2- 13 Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization areas, southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico ............................................................................. 2-25 Fig. 2-6. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization area, 2-26 Big Bend National Park, Texas ...............................................................................................................

Fig. 3-l. Affected areas under Alternatives A, B, and C in the

BRWRA region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -..(.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 ....... Fig. 3-2. Affected areas under Alternatives A and B in the

3-3 3-4 Fig. 3-4. White Sands Wolf Recovery Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27 Fig. 3-5. White Sands Missile Range extension areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28 Fig. 3-6. Impact areas and range centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 Fig. 3-7. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization areas, southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Fig. 3-8. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization area, Big Bend National Park, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40 . WSWRA region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................

Fig. 3-3. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxi

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need for Action

CHAPTER 1 Pumose and Need For Action Introduction This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) addresses the reintroduction of the endangered Mexican gray wolf (Ciznis lupus baileyz], a subspecies of the gray wolf, within part of its historic range in the southwestern United States. Formerly found in many of the mountainous areas of the Southwest and Mexico, the Mexican wolf has been extirpated from the United States and may have been extirpated from Mexico, where it has not been confirmed to exist since the early 1980’s. The only known Mexican wolves reside in captivity in a breeding program overseen by the United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Region 2, headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in cooperation with Mexican authorities. This chapter begins with a discussion of the purpose and need for the reintroduction action proposed by the FWS. Then, an overview description of the Mexican wolf is provided. The public scoping process that helped define the issues to be covered in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), then in this FEIS, is then reviewed. Chap. 1 concludes with a list of the various permits and approvals that may be needed to implement a decision arising out of this federal environmental impact assessment process.

Purpose The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, adopted under rhe authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), has two prime recovery objectives: maintaining a captive population and re-establishing at least 100 wild wolves in a 5,000 mi’ area within the subspecies’ historic range (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982).‘Th e p ur p ose of the proposed action (Alter‘Written materials relied on in this EIS are cited by the author’s

native A, now designated as the Preferred Alternative) in this FEIS is to begin implementing the re-establishment objective of the Recovery Plan by releasing Mexican wolves from the captive population into the wild. Commencing in 1997, or as soon thereafter as practical, the FWS will gradually release up to 15 pairs or family groups into the Blue Range area of east-central Arizona. Also, if it is determined to be necessary and feasible, up to five pairs or family groups may be released into the back-up area, the White Sands Missile Range of south-central New Mexico. The objective is to re-establish 100 wild Mexican wolves distributed over 5,000 mi’ by the year 2005. The FWS and cooperating agencies will closely monitor and study the reintroduced wolves. Management of the reintroduction will be constantly evaluated and adapted as new circumstances arise. This proposal represents the beginning of recovery for the Mexican wolf in the wild within a small part of its former range and the proposal contributes to conservation of the gray wolf species as a whole. Full recovery of the Mexican wolf subspecies likely will require additional reintroduction projects elsewhere and may take several decades to accomplish.2 Full recovery is beyond the scope of this EIS.

Need The FWS is acting under the ESA, which directs the Secretary of Interior to develop and implement recovery plans for species and subspecies such as the Mexican wolf that are in danger of human-caused extinction, 16 USC sec. 1533(f). The FWS also agreed to make “expeditious” progress toward Mexican wolf recovery under a 1993 settlement of a lawsuit filed by several private groups that advocate wolf recovery.3 last name and

the year of publication. Full citations are pro-

vided alphabetically in Appendix H. ‘Downlisting and delisting would occur after meeting population and other recovery criteria to be defined in a revised Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, currently in the revision process. Complete restoration throughout the subspecies’ former range is neither required nor planned. 3 WolfAction Group, et al. u United States, et aL, U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, Civil Action No. CIV-900390-HB. l-l

Purpose and Need for Action

Overview of the Mexican Wolf

Other federal agencies are required by the ESA to take actions within their authority to conserve threatened and endangered species, 16 USC sec. 153 1 (c) ( 1). This is to be done in consultation with the FWS, 16 USC sec. 1536(a)( 1). States that have entered into cooperative agreements with the Secretary of Interior, which include Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, also have responsibilities to conserve threatened and endangered species, 16 USC sec. 1535. The State of New Mexico has its own endangered wildlife law that provides for conservation of listed species including the gray wolf, the Wildlife Conservation Act (Sets. 17-2-37 through 17-2-46, NMSA 1978) and State Game Commission Regulation No. 682 (Amending the Listing of Endangered Species and Subspecies of New Mexico 1990). Arizona’s Game and Fish Department also has a policy supporting endangered species recovery (AGFD 1987). The Department has drafted a “Cooperative Reintroduction Plan for the Mexican Wolf in Arizona” that calls for a joint reintroduction effort with the FWS in the Blue Range area (Groebner et al. 1995). Additional duties to recover the Mexican wolf arise from international law. Both Mexico and the United States signed the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, which took effect in 1942. Its preamble states the parties desire “to protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna.” Mexican wolf recovery would serve to implement this convention (anon. 1985). Recovery programs for the gray wolf are underway elsewhere in the United States; however, they involve less rare subspecies. Experts have rated recovery of the Mexican wolf subspecies as the highest priority of all such programs.4 The subspecies is genetically distinct from other wolves (Wayne et al. 1992), and no confirmed population exists outside captivity. It is one of the rarest land mammals in the world.

Description The Mexican wolf is among the smallest of the North American gray wolves. Adults weigh 50 to 90 Ibs., average 4’6” to 5’6” in total length, and reach 26” to 32” in height at the shoulder (Young and Goldman 1944, Brown 1983). Its pelt color varies. The “lobe”-its popular name-is the southernmost subspecies of what once was the most wide-ranging species of the North American mammals (Paradiso and Nowak 1982). Appendix A summarizes what is known about Mexican wolf life history and ecology. However, little scientific research was done while the animal existed in the wild. The only field data came from a period of rapidly dwindling numbers when human activities had disrupted pack structures and natural prey populations.

Taxonomy Hall and Kelson (1959), relying heavily on the prior work of Young and Goldman (1944), described 24 subspecies of gray wolves (Cdnis lupus) in North America, five of which occurred in the southwestern United States and Mexico: C’. 1. buif$yi, C. 1. mogollonensis, C. 1. monstrabilis, C. 1. nub&, and C. 1. youngi. A taxonomic revision proposed by Bogan and Mehlhop (1980 and 1983), and adopted by the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team and the FWS (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982, USFWS 1984), lumped C. 1. mogoiionensis and C. 1. monstrabiiis into C. 1. baikty’. In a recent reclassification of North American gray wolves, Nowak (1995) proposed reducing the original 24 named subspecies to five, of which C. 1. baileyi is one. However, Nowak’s reclassification differs from that proposed by Bogan and Mehlhop in that Nowak includes C. 1. mogoffonensis and C. 1. monstrabilis with C. 1. nub&s rather than with C. 1. baileyi. It should be noted that no individual taxonomist or publication has official or ruling status on questions of mammalian taxonomy.

*The Wolf Specialist Group, a worldwide body of experts on wolves organized under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (the World Conservation Union), Species Survival Commission, has endorsed Mexican wolf recovery “as its highest priority project” (Mech 1990). 1-2

Purpose and Need for Action

(Mech 1970, Brewster and Fritts 1994). The width of these zones relates to the ability of wolves to disperse. They are capable of dispersing hundreds of miles, with the longest known dispersal exceeding 550 miles (Fritts 1983). Thus for gray wolves, these zones of subspecies intergradation were likely hundreds of miles wide. In light of these considerations, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team has determined that the probable historic range of the Mexican wolf included the core geographic range of C. 1. baifqi, plus an approximately 200-mile extension to the north and northwest of that area (Fig. l-l) (D. Parsons, USFWS, pers. comm.). This range delineation includes the core range of C. 1. builqi as described by Young and Goldman (1944), Hall and Kelson (1959), and Nowak (1995); includes much of the expanded range resulting from the consolidation of subspecies proposed by Bogan and Mehlhop (1980); accommodates the range expansion of C. 1. baiLeyi following extermination of adjacent wolf populations described by Nowak (1995); and is consistent with the dispersal capability of gray wolves. Fig. l- 1 delineates the probable historic range of C. 1. baifqi for purposes of reintroducing the subspecies into the wild with experimental status, 50 CFR 17.81(a). Chap. 3 on the Affected Environment summarizes the historical evidence of wolves for each of the recovery areas under consideration. The last 100 years have seen the Mexican wolf’s range, which in the past may have sustained a population of many thousands, shrink very severely. Not all habitat types within the area in Fig. l-l were occupied by these wide-ranging predators, however. Historic reports refer to the Mexican wolf as primarily associated with forested mountainous terrain (Bednarz 1988). While it does not require particular vegetation, it reportedly most often occurred above 4,500 feet elevation in or near woodlands of pine5, oak, or pinon-juniper, interspersed with grasslands (Brown 1983).

The classifications proposed by Hall and Kelson (1959), Bogan and Mehlhop (1980), and Nowak (I 995) were based on comparisons of morphological characteristics, primarily skull measurements. They all concluded that C 1. badqi is a morphologically distinct subspecies of gray wolf. Molecular genetic analyses have identified distinct attributes of Mexican wolves (Garcia-Moreno 1995, Hedrick 1995, see Appendix K). Thus, consensus exists among experts that C. 1. baifqi is a distinct gray wolf subspecies. However, the lingering question of which of the formerly recognized subspecies (Hall and Kelson 1959) belong to C. 1. bailqi continues to confuse the delineation of the Mexican wolf’s historic distribution.

Historic Distribution As indicated above, the drafters of the original Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan accepted the recommendations of Bogan and Mehlhop (1980) and included the ranges of the former C. 1. mogollonensis and C 1. monstrabilis in the range of C. 1. badeyi (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982). However, in Nowak’s (1995) opinion, the original core geographic range of C. 1. bailqi extended just north of the Gila River, which bisects the Gila National Forest. This brings into question the taxonomic affinity of specimens collected from the Gila National Forest area (Nowak 1995). Nowak does not describe the limits of the northeastern portion of his proposed range for the Mexican wolf, but the line on his map appears to bisect White Sands Missile Range then turns southeast through western Texas and enters Mexico just east of Big Bend National Park. Nowak (1995) speculates that individuals from the core geographic range of C. 1. baileyi regularly dispersed into the range of populations to the north. He found that, following the large-scale extermination of wolves in the southwestern U.S., the later occurrence of wolves in these areas was attributable to C. 1. baileyi dispersing from Mexico (Nowak 1995). In reality, the boundaries between ranges of adjacent gray wolf subspecies were wide zones of intergradation where genetic mixing between subspecies occurred, rather than distinct lines on a map

5Appendix I provides a List of Scientific Names for all species mentioned. l-3

Purpose

Reasons for Listing

and Need for Action

“The gray wolfwas abundant in northern Mexico (present day New Mexico), where ‘they sometimes make dreadful havoc among the cattle, frequently killing and devouring even mules and horses”’ (Gregg, quoted in Young and Goldman 1994).

Many factors contributed to the Mexican wolf’s demise, but its reputation as a livestock killer, which led to concerted federal eradication efforts, was predominant (Brown 1983, McBride 1980). Other less important factors were: commercial and recreational hunting and trapping; killing of wolves by game managers on the theory that more game animals would be available for hunters (Leopold 1944); habitat alteration; and human safety concerns (although no documentation exists of Mexican wolf attacks on humans). Fig. 1-2 illustrates the subspecies’ rapid decline in New Mexico and Arizona following initiation of federal eradication efforts in 1915. After about 15 years of‘ trapping, shooting, and poisoning of adults, and “denning” of pups (digging them out of dens and killing them), very few Mexican wolves remained. The last killings by control agents occurred around 1960. A similar decline occurred in Texas (Scudday 1977). Eradication efforts were stimulated by bounties offered by federal, state, and local governments, as well as livestock associations and individual ranchers (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982). It is difficult now to assess the accuracy of reports regarding the Mexican wolf’s historic impact on livestock (see Appendix A, Livestock Depredation section). Some representative quotes from commentators illustrate the animal’s reputation as a livestock killer:

“Wolves’ hunting techniques changed when ranchers began to settle the West and bring in livestock. Deer, always difficult for canids to obtain, became increasingly scarce under the pressure of subsistence hunting by homesteaders, miners, and cowboys. More importantly, livestock were easy picking everywhere. Once set, this table was too easy to resist.... the adaptable wolves readily abandoned their natural prey and turned almost entirely to cattle.” (D.E. Brown 1983). “The big wolves, the worst predatory enemy of cattle, have been brought under control.... We are concerned merely to the extent of preventing reinfestation from Mexico.” (Ligon 1927). The apparently high historical depredation rates are inconsistent with the situation now in other areas where gray wolves and cattle co-exist, such as the northern Rocky Mountains and northern Minnesota, where depredation is quite uncommon relative to livestock numbers available (range: 0.004% to 0.09% of available cattle killed by wolves annually; Mack et al. 1992). Gipson (quoted in McIntyre 1994) questions the validity of historic accounts of wolf depredation rates.

“In my opinion, the lobo is the cruelest, most wanton killer of all our Southwestern predators. Bears and lions do sometimes become stock killers, and both do sometimes kill wantonly, beyond the need for food. But such animals are the exceptions to the rule: whereas the opposite is true, in my opinion of the lobo.... A favorite method of killing large animals is to hamstring the animal, breaking him down and making him completely helpless.... A few incidents like this will teach anyone to hate wolves.... The Fish and Wildlife Service (formerly The Biological Survey) has rendered an invaluable service to the livestock and game interests of the Southwest by the determined warfare they have carried on against the lobo.” (Evans 195 1).

Status The subspecies is now considered extirpated from the southwestern United States because no wild wolf has been confirmed to exist since 1970. Occasional sightings of “wolves” continue to be reported from U.S. locations but, to date, none have been confirmed through clear evidence, despite continuing investigation (Girmendonk 1994a, Whitaker et al. 1995, Wolok 1994). Survival of the animal in the wild in Mexico also remains unconfirmed. Based on field surveys in 1977-1978, McBride (1980) estimated that “some 50 wolves may still inhabit Mexico.” Computer 1-5

Purpose and Need for Action

F i g u r e l - 2 . Wo 1ves reported taken by federal and state cooperative hunters in Arizona and New Mexico, fiscal years 1916 through 1960. 120 110

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO/ARIZONA

ez NEW M E X I C O

Notes: Based on annual reports of Arizona and New Mexico districts of the Predatory Animal and Rodent Control (PARC) bureau. May include some wolves not discussed in PARC reports and some animals that were not wolves. *Estimates

SOURCE: Brown (1983)

Silvestre approved the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in 1982 (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982). The Plan recognizes that the subspecies’ recovery depends on reestablishment in suitable habitats within its historic range. Two males and one pregnant female captured in the wild in Mexico from 1977 to 1980 and the uncaptured mate of the pregnant female founded the certified captive population of Mexican wolves. In 1995, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team approved the addition of two other captive Mexican wolf lineages, representing four additional founders, into the certified population, based on state-of-the-art genetic analysis. One is known as the Ghost Ranch lineage, some of which were kept and bred at the Ghost Ranch Living Museum in northern New Mexico; the other is the Aragon lineage based at the

simulations by Ardura (1992), based on McBride’s estimate, indicated a high probability that this suggested population of 50 remnant wolves would be extinct by 1994 (although the simulations relied on unverifiable assumptions). Recent field research has revealed few reports, and no confirmation, of wolves remaining in Mexico (Carrera 1994). Investigation is continuing. The Mexican wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies in 1976 (41 FR 17736). In 1978, the gray wolf species in North America south of Canada was listed as endangered, except in Minnesota where it was listed as threatened (43 FR 9607). This listing of the species as a whole continued to recognize valid biological subspecies for purposes of research and conservation (43 FR 96 10). The Directors of the FWS and the Mexican Direction General de la Fauna l-6

Purpose and Need for Action

Aragon Zoo in Mexico City. As of March, 1996, the total certified captive population in the three lineages stood at 139 animals; 114 are held at 24 facilities, mostly zoos and wildlife sanctuaries, in the United States and 25 are held at five facilities in Mexico. The FWS also has a captive population management facility on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in central New Mexico to hold surplus wolves from the other facilities (USFWS 1994a). These surplus animals would be the potential release stock if the FWS undertakes the proposed reintroduction effort.

out by private groups, and petitions. All comments were tabulated. The 65 oral comments made during the three recorded public meetings were transcribed and tabulated. Also, numerous other agencies and experts have been consulted (see Chapter 5 Coordination and Consultation).’

Alternatives and Impact Questions Raised in Scoping The public raised approximately 112 definable questions in eight general categories (Jenkins 1993). Some questions related to the alternative actions to be considered; most related to the potential impacts of wolf releases. Table l-l identifies the most common questions and the alternatives or environmental impacts to which the questions relate. The Mexican Wolf EIS Interdisciplinary Team, charged with overseeing the writing of this document, determined which of the questions raised in the public scoping process represented reasonable alternatives or potentially significant impacts meriting treatment in the FEIS, pursuant to 40 CFR sec. 150 1.7(a) (2).’ Table 1 - 1 indicates the Interdisciplinary Team’s determinations for the most common questions.

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Public Involvement The FWS has involved the public, pursuant to 40 CFR sec. 150 1.7, in determining the significant questions that this EIS should address. At the time of the public scoping in 1991 and 1992, five candidate areas for releasing Mexican wolves were under consideration. These five areas had been identified by the FWS and the Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas state wildlife agencies as potentially suitable for wolf release (USFWS 1992). The areas were centered on: 1) the Blue Range, 2) the Chiricahua Mountains, 3) the Galiuro and Pinaleno Mountains, and 4) the Atascosa and Patagonia Mountains, all in Arizona; and 5) the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The FWS held four public meetings, two in Tucson, Arizona, one in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and one in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Written comment periods followed each meeting and followed publication of the FWS’s Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (USFWS 1992). 0ver 838 people attended the meetings and the FWS received a total of 1,324 written comments during the comment periods (Jenkins 1993). These consisted of individual letters, form letters, responses to opinion questionnaires sent

Alternatives and Impact Questions Addressed in this FEIS Alternatives

The Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (USFWS 1992) preliminarily identified three alternative actions under consideration for the candidate areas: .

reintroduction of captive-raised Mexican wolves classified as a nonessential experimental population,

.

reintroduction under full protection of the

“The scoping process occurred prior to the issuance of President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order, No. 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. ” Environmental justice issues were not commonly raised in the scoping process. Based on the analysis in this FEIS, the proposed action is not expected to significantly impact minority or low-income populations. ‘Members of the Interdisciplinary Team are identified in the List of Preparers in Chapter 5. 1-7

Purpose and Need for Action

Table l-l. Most common questions raised during public scoping and their treatment in this final environmental impact statement.

Key:

I 2 3 4

= = = = A = X =

addressed in Chap. 1 on purpose, need, and Mexican wolf overview, addressed in Chap. 2 on alternatives addressed in Chap. 3 on affected environment addressed in Chap. 4 on consequences addressed in Appendix A on Mexican wolf life history and ecology alternative or impact question not addressed directly in FEIS, see text for explanation

Treatment Questions Related to Alternatives or Planning X X 2

A: B: C:

2

D:

2 2 2

E: F: G:

Should release sites in Mexico be considered? Should release sites in Texas be considered! Should reintroduced Mexican wolves be designated as experimental and non-essential to the continued existence of the species? Should reintroduced Mexican wolves retain full endangered species status and related protection? Should additional areas be considered as release sites? Should more than one initial release site be considered? Should wolves that disperse off of target recovery areas be controlled?

Questions Related to Potential Impacts

1. Livestock Deprdation Impacts 4 4 LA

A: B: C:

Will wolves prey on domestic livestock? Will livestock depredation impacts be significant? (Zould changes in livestock management practices reduce the depredation impacts?

2. Economic Impacts 2 2,4 4 4

A: B: C: D: E:

X

F:

x

Should livestock owners be compensated for wolf-caused losses? Will compensation programs be effective? Will hunting license sales be impacted by wolf reintroduction? Should states be compensated for game losses? Will wolf reintroduction adversely impact local economies in New Mexico and Arizona? C:an costs of Mexican wolf recovery be justified?

1-8

Purpose and Need for Action Table 1- 1. Continued.

3. EcoiogicalJBioiogical X

A:

4,A

B:

3.4

c:

4,A

D:

3

E: F: G: H:

2 2 X

Impacts

Does maintenance of ecosystem health require the presence of native predators and a balanced predator-prey relationship? Will wolf predation adversely impact other wildlife populations? Are prey populations in the potential recovery areas adequate to support wolf populations? Do wolves perform an important evolutionary service to prey species by removing unfit animals from their populations? Is White Sands Missile Range within the historic range of Cam’s lupus baileyi? Has life in c-aptivity caused Mexican wolves to lose their fear of humans? Has life in captivity impacted the Mexican wolfs ability to survive in the wild? Are wolves an essential component of the ecosystem?

4. Population Viability Considerations 1,2

A:

2

B:

5. 4

A A

Does recovery and long-term survival of the Mexican wolf require its reintroduction to the wild? Is inbreeding depression evident in the captive population?

Wikilife Management Impacts A: B: C:

Will wolves compete with human hunters for the same prey? Do wolves pose a threat to human safety? Will reintroduction of the Mexican wolf pose any significant disease-related impacts?

6. Pbilosophical/Ethicai Considerations X X X

A: B: C:

Do wolves have a right to exist? Do wolves have a right to exist in a natural environment/ecosystem? Should wild lands be restored and conserved?

7. Other Impacts/Considerations 4

A I,3 4

1 X

A: B: C: D: E: F:

Will existing land uses or land use plans be impacted by wolf reintroduction? Will wolves kill pets? Do Mexican wolves still exist in the wild? Will wolf reintroduction on White Sands Missile Range impact the operations there? Is the wolf an endangered species? If the wolf is released in Arizona, what will be the impact if it disperses into Mexico?

l-9

Purpose and Need for Action

.

ESA, and

these areas considered in this FEIS-reflect agency, expert, and public input.

no action, in which Mexican wolves are not reintroduced.

Impacts

This FEIS addresses most of the major impact questions raised by other agencies, outside experts, and the public. Those impacts judged to be potentially significant receive detailed, alternative-byalternative, analysis in Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences. The Interdisciplinary Team determined that alternative-by-alternative analysis was appropriate for six of the impacts most stressed by the public and for three additional potentially significant impacts that released wolves could cause. The three additional impact topics were impacts on: 1) predator control activities, especially of USDA’s Animal Damage Control division, 2) agency, tribal, and local government policies and plans, and 3) recreational uses in the areas involved. In sum, the nine potentially significant impact topics are:

The second and third of these alternatives have not changed fundamentally in this FEIS (see Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, which describes the alternatives in detail). However, public input and further scoping by the Interdisciplinary Team led to dividing the first-listed alternative, above, into two alternatives, as follows: .

reintroduction of captive-raised Mexican wolves, classified as nonessential experimental, under management plans to allow dispersal from the primary recovery zones into secondary recovery zones (the Preferred Alternative), and

.

reintroduction as nonessential experimental under management plans to prevent dispersal from the primary recovery zones.

Impacts on wild prey of wolves Impacts on hunting Impacts on livestock Impacts on predator control programs Impacts on agency, tribal, and local government policies and plans Impacts on land use Impacts on military activities Impacts on recreation Impacts on regional economies

This change reflects that a key distinction among the alternatives is the degree of control the FWS would exert over the movements of the population. The first alternative allows the released wolves and their progeny to establish territories well away from the release areas (or “primary recovery zones”), while the latter alternative calls for the FWS to prevent the wolves from dispersing beyond the primary recovery zones. The alternatives scoping process also included the selection of two of the five candidate areas within the subspecies’ former range as the most suitable for releasing Mexican wolves. This involved comparing and ranking all the candidates based on key suitability attributes (see Chapter 2 - Selection of Potential Areas for Releasing Mexican Wolves). The two candidates selected were the Blue Range area in east-central Arizona and the White Sands Missile Range in south-central New Mexico. Largely in response to comments on the DEIS, the Interdisciplinary Team and the FWS have decided that the Preferred Alternative (Ah. A) should focus on the Blue Range area for the initial releases and treat the White Sands area as a back-up, to be used only if necessary and feasible. In summary, the wolf recovery areas selected-and the alternative actions for

Chapter 4 describes the scope of these topics in detail.

Alternatives and Impact Questions Not Addressed in this FEIS Alternatives

The following questions that relate to alternatives or planning were considered but dropped from detailed analysis in this EIS because they were determined not to raise reasonable alternatives meriting consideration (see Table l-l regarding the treatment of all alternative or planning issues):

l-10

Purpose and Need for Action

Should release sites in Mexico be considered? This is not addressed because the FWS lacks any authority over recovery actions in Mexico. Further, the FWS lacks information on potential impacts there. Obtaining this information for purposes of analyzing such an alternative would present major logistical and diplomatic difficulties. Mexican wildlife authorities may consider wolf reintroductions in the future.

survival of the subspecies. The nonessential experimental classification allows for management flexibility deemed vital to successful wolf recovery (USFWS 1993a). The essential experimental classification in many ways could be similar to the alternative of releasing wolves classified as fully endangered, which this FEIS does address (Chap. 2 - Alternative C). Alternatively, if a very flexible experimental population rule was adopted, then the essential experimental classification could be similar to the nonessential experimental approach, analyzed here as Alternative A. Detailed analysis of the essential experimental classification would be redundant.

Should release sites in Texas be considered?This is not addressed here because suitable areas to support a reintroduced wolf population have not been identified or designated in Texas. However, this FEIS does consider Big Bend National Park, Texas, as a potential natural recolonization area that could support a very small wolf population that would not be independently viable (see Chapter 2 - Alternative D). Release sites adjacent to the Mexican border are generally undesirable, absent further cooperation with Mexico, because of the likelihood that wolves would then disperse into Mexico beyond the protection of the ESA and beyond the control of U.S. agencies.

Impacts

The following questions relating to impacts were considered but dropped from detailed analysis because they were determined either to lie outside the reasonable scope of this EIS or not to raise potentially significant impacts (see Table l-l regarding the treatment of all impact issues): Should any game Losses to stategovernments be compensated? This is a policy choice rather than an environmental impact. There is no objective answer. Nevertheless, Chap. 4 does estimate the hunting-related economic losses in Arizona and New Mexico.

Should wolves be captured in Mexico and released in the United States? This is not addressed because no evidence of a viable wild population exists from which suitable release stock could be drawn. (However, the original breeding stock of the captive population proposed here for release was captured in Mexico.) Further, the FWS would lack any authority to undertake such actions in Mexico even if sufftcient numbers of wolves were found and it is uncertain whether the Mexican government would approve such actions.

Can impacts to taxpayers because of costs of Mexican wolf recovery be just;fied? This also is a policy choice without an objective answer. However, Chap. 2, Table 2-8, and Appendix B do provide cost estimates for the four alternatives. Impacts involving long-term evolutionary orpbilosopbical concerns. These include “are wolves an essential component of the ecosystem?“, “should wild lands be restored and conserved?“, and “do wolves have a right to exist?” These are policy questions involving value judgments rather than environmental impacts. Their consideration is either not required by the National Environmental Policy Act or would be beyond the reasonable coverage of this EIS.

Should captive-raised wolves be released as an essential experimental population, under section 100) of the ESA, 16 USCsec. 1533This is not addressed because the FWS determined that the nonessential experimental classification fits the Mexican wolf’s status. Only wolves surplus to the captive breeding program will be released. (See Appendix C - Proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule, section on Findings Regarding Reintroduction, and Appendix D - Section 7 Consultation on Proposed Action, section on Effects on Mexican Gray Wolf, regarding definition of “surplus” wolves and significance of their removal from the captive population.) Their loss would not jeopardize the continued

Are there possible impacts in Mexico zywolves were released in the United States?This question is not addressed because the two areas considered for releasing wolves are well north of the border and the l-11

Purpose and Need for Action

proposal calls for retrieval ofwolves that disperse out of the designated recovery areas. Impacts in Mexico, while remotely conceivable, are not likely. It should be noted that if wolves did naturally recolonize border areas from further south in Mexico under Alternative D-that is, without a release ofcaptive-raised wolves-then associated impacts in Mexico would be anticipated. The probability of natural recolonization actually occurring is considered very low.

DEIS and this FEIS that are not reflected yet in the proposed experimental population rule re-printed in Appendix C. A decision to proceed with the proposed action, or any alternative that involves experimental reintroduction, would need to be followed by issuance of a final experimental population rule. Pursuant to 50 CFR sec. 17.8 1 (d), the rule is being developed in consultation with appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected agencies, landowners, and others. The EIS process has provided the opportunity for such consultations to occur (see Chap. 5 for additional information on consultation and coordination). In addition, a consultation and public hearing process specific to the proposed rule has been undertaken.

Permits and Clearances The following regulatory approvals and cooperative arrangements may be necessary prior to releasing captive Mexican wolves: a>

b)

NEPA required the FWS to submit a draft EIS, subject to an agency and public review period. The draft EIS was approved on June 8, 1995, and the comment period on the draft ended October 31 (see Chapter 5 for further information on the public input on the draft). The revision of the draft has lead to this FEIS, which is to be followed by a decision on which action to take, 42 USC sec. 4321 et seq. The Record of Decision will follow issuance of the FEIS by at least 30 days, 40 CFR sec.s 1505.2 and 1506.10. Also, before construction of the proposed release pens, the agencies involved would need to cooperatively decide on precise pen locations within the primary recovery zone or zones and then prepare one or more environmental assessments under NEPA of the potential site-specific impacts. The FWS would need to promulgate an experimental population rule describing protection and management of the proposed nonessential experimental population, 16 LJSC sec. 1539(j). The provisions of the FWS’s Proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule are summarized in Chapter 2 and provided in full in Appendix C. This version was officially published in the Federal Register on May 1, 1996, pages 19237- 19248. Various changes have been made to the proposed action between the 1-12

c>

The FWS would need an internally-issued endangered species permit authorizing movement of captive wolves for purposes of release, 16 USC sec. 1539(a). Also, the FWS would need an internal Section 7 consultation regarding potential impacts of the proposal on federally-listed threatened and endangered species, 16 USC sec. 1536. This has been undertaken and no adverse effects are anticipated (Appendix D). A similar consultation has been provided by the New Mexico Game and Fish Department regarding state-listed species (Hubbard 1994), under New Mexico’s Wildlife Conservation Act, NMSA 17-2-37 to -46.

4

Action by the Arizona Game and Fish Department will follow its process for approving endangered species releases (AGFD 1987) (Appendix E). The Department has drafted a “Cooperative Reintroduction Plan for the Mexican Wolf in Arizona” that calls for a joint reintroduction effort with the FWS in the Blue Range area (Groebner et al. 1995). It sets forth minimum criteria to be considered in evaluating implementation of the plan.

4

Various agencies, tribes, and local governments have policies and plans that could be affected by the final decision. The FWS has

Purpose and Need for Action

attempted to cooperate with these parties in the EIS process through meetings and sharing information. They may need to follow their own decision making procedures regarding their participation in future wolf recovery actions. Other arrangements with federal, state, and tribal agencies covering such matters as access, trapping, research, radio-tracking, and airplane overflights would need to be formalized through one or more interagency cooperative management plans or agreements. These would follow the Record of Decision.

1-13

Chapter 2

Alternatives including the Proposed Action

CHAP’ :ER 2 Alternatives I xluding the Proposed Action Introduction

analysis of two other captive lineages. In 1995, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team found these other two lineages to be pure Mexican wolves and recommended that they be added to the certified Mexican wolf population, to enhance its genetic diversity as well as its size. The SSP Management Group’s goal of having at least 100 certified animals in the U.S. captive population prior to a reintroduction effort has been exceeded. The population is ready to support a reintroduction effort. The FWS will move male/female pairs identified as candidates for possible release to its captive wolf management facility on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, north of Socorro, New Mexico. Native prey recognition, predatory skill trials, aversive conditioning to livestock and humans, and other measures to improve adaptation of the wolves to life in the wild may be initiated at this facility. In the event of a decision to proceed with reintroduction, the FWS would select from among the candidate pairs based on reproductive performance, behavioral compatibility, response to the adaptation process, and other factors. Only those individual wolves that are genetically well-represented in the remaining captive population would be used as release stock. The actual releases under each of the reintroduction alternatives described below (Alt.s A, B, and C) would be “soft releases.”

This chapter begins with an overview of the Mexican gray wolf recovery program and the “soft release” approach to wolf reintroduction, followed by an outline of the selection process for potential areas for releasing wolves in the Southwest. These background sections are important for understanding why, how, and where the alternative actions would occur. The chapter then describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Proposed Action (Ah. A), now designated as the “Preferred Alternative.” This incorporates a cooperative reintroduction plan proposed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Preferred Alternative is followed by two other approaches to reintroducing the Mexican wolf (Alt.s B and C) and a “No Action” approach (Alt. D). Numbers of animals proposed for release, population growth scenarios, foreseeably affected areas, and impact mitigation measures are given for each alternative. The chapter concludes with summary tables comparing the features of the four alternatrves and comparing their environmental consequences.

The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program All Mexican wolves to be released will come from the captive population, which now numbers 114 animals maintained in 24 zoos and wildlife sanctuaries in the United States. The Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan (SSP) Management Group, made up of representatives from those facilities, coordinates the population’s management. Cooperation also occurs with the managers of a smaller population in Mexican zoos. The wolves have exhibited no major genetic, physical, or behavioral problems affecting their fitness resulting from captivity (Siminski 1994a, see Appendix K - Fish and Wildlife Service Response to Dennis Parker’s Comment on the DEIS). The SSP Management Group has paired the certified population for maximum breeding potential every breeding season since 1990 (Siminski 1994b). Also, the FWS has undertaken genetic

The Sok Release Approach Experts developed the soft release approach to wolf reintroduction in order to reduce the likelihood of quick dispersal away from the release area (USFWS 1993a, Fritts 1992; see Appendix A - Wolf Movements section). This involves a holding period of up to several months in secure, temporary pens at the release sites, where exposure to humans is minimized. Following adaptation to local conditions the wolves-wearing standard telemetry collars-are allowed to leave the pens. Field managers may leave carcasses of native prey nearby until the wolves begin hunting on their own. Movements of initial groups of released wolves provide valuable information guiding future releases (Phillips 1992). Annual 2-l

Alternatives Including releases are made this way until it appears that the recovery goals will be met through reproduction in the wild. No soft release of captive-raised gray wolves has occurred previously; however, the FWS is currently undertaking a series of annual soft releases of wildcaught gray wolves from Canada into Yellowstone National Park (USFWS 1993a, see Appendix J Update on Yellowstone and Central Idaho Gray Wolf Reintroductions). Also, the reintroduction of the red wolf (Canis rufis) in eastern North Carolina was largely by soft releases of captive-raised animals (Phillips 1992). Both of these release programs, conducted under nonessential experimental population rules, have largely succeeded to date. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program will apply knowledge gained from these experiences.

the

Proposed

Action

Overall, the WSMR ranked highest followed closely by the Blue Range area. However, the WSMR ranked lowest of all five candidates in total area of vegetation associated with typical Mexican wolf habitat. Bednarz (1989) estimated that 1,000 mi2 of such vegetation (mostly pinon-juniper woodland) exists on and adjacent to WSMR. Bednarz predicted the entire WSMR area could support about 30 wolves. The FWS’s current estimate of the number of wolves the area could support, based largely on prey availability and computer modelling of deer population dynamics (Green-Hammond 1994), is less: only 20. Neither estimate-30 or 2O-represents an independently viable population (Bednarz 1989, Shaf%er 1987). Nevertheless, a population in this size range likely could be maintained through supplemental releases or, possibly, by natural immigration of wolves from other nearby populations if other populations were present. The WSMR is unique among the five candidate areas in that it is closed to public access and livestock grazing, although livestock are grazed on adjacent lands. It is largely isolated, except to the northeast, by 25 to 40 mile-wide desert basins that could inhibit wolf movements. These features, particularly the low likelihood that wolves would prey on livestock, offer advantages as an area to conduct a relatively low-conflict, experimental reintroduction. However, the predicted wolf numbers the WSMR could support fall far short of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan’s objective of re-establishing at least 100 wolves in an area of 5,000 mi2 (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982). At least one additional area would be needed to achieve the objective. The WSMR could possibly serve as a “wolf nursery” from which recaptured wild wolves, rather than captive-raised wolves, might be used to stock another recovery area. The use of wild-raised wolves has been an important factor in the success of past reintroductions (Fritts 1992). The Blue Range of east-central Arizona was the other high-ranking candidate release area (Table 2-l). It also received the highest ranking by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in its analysis of the four Arizona candidate areas (Johnson et al. 1992). This and contiguous parts of the Apache National Forest (ANF) lie adjacent to the larger Gila National Forest (GNF) in New Mexico, which provides similar, forested, mountainous habitat. Together the ANF and GNF comprise more than

Selection of Potential Areas for Releasing Mexican Wolves Identification of potential areas for releasing Mexican wolves began in 1986 when the FWS, pursuant to the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, solicited candidates from the wildlife management agencies of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. This led to evaluation of five areas for their relative suitability. These areas were centered on: 1) the Blue Range, 2) the Chiricahua Mountains, 3) the Galiuro and Pinaleno Mountains, and 4) the Atascosa and Patagonia Mountains, all in Arizona; and 5) the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico (Fig. 2-l). Arizona’s Game and Fish Department analyzed the four Arizona candidates (Johnson et al. 1992). Bednarz (1989), under a contract with the FWS, analyzed the WSMR. The FWS compared and ranked the five candidates based on the following attributes: area of vegetation associated with typical Mexican wolf habitat, wild ungulate density, water availability, livestock density, potential effects on other threatened or endangered species, human population density, and road density (USFWS 1993e) (Table 21). The ranking did not attempt to consider every possible facet of the long-term suitability of these areas for wolf recovery. Long-term suitability will to some extent depend on future ecological changes and management actions. 2-2

2-3

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-l. Suitability rankings of candidate areas for releasing Mexican wolves.

Key: APM = Atascosa and Patagonia Mountains, Arizona BR = Blue Range, Arizona CM = Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona GPM = Galiuro and Pinaleno Mountains, Arizona WSMR = White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico Area Rank’ Attribute

APM

BR

CM

GPM

WSMR

Habitat Area Ungulate Density Water Availability Livestock Density T&E2 Sp. Effects Human Density Road Density

TOTAL

21

27

17

15

30

‘The highest rank is 5 and the lowest rank is 1. Areas that were substantially equivalent on an attribute received the same r.ink for that attribute. ’ “‘T&E Sp. Effects” refers to expected effects on other threatened and endangered species in the area

SOURCE: USFWS ( 1 9 9 3 e )

grazing allotments. The potential for conflicts with ranching and other uses is higher. In addition, about 4,000 mi’ of similar, contiguous, largely forested, montane habitat lies to the west on the Fort Apache (or White Mountain Apache) and San Carlos Apache Reservations in Arizona. However, the FWS has no agreement with these tribes regarding their future involvement in wolf recovery and both have expressed opposition to wolves on their reservations. The reservations, therefore, have not been considered as potential release or recovery areas. Nevertheless, they could be affected if wolves are released in the Blue Range area and they are addressed as likely wolf dispersal areas

7,000 mi2 of federal land, most of which is suitable for wolves. A wolf population reintroduced into the Blue Range area would likely eventually expand throughout much of the ANF and GNF unless managers prevented this from occurring. Assuming an average pack territory size to be about 250 mi’ (see Mech 1970), and average pack size to be five wolves (Bednarz 1988), the ANF and GNF combined could support 100 or more wolves. This accords roughly with Bailey’s (193 1) estimate that 100 wolves occupied the GNF area in 1906. Successful reintroduction into the ANF and GNF area would meet the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan’s objective. However, unlike the WSMR, the ANF and GNF are open to public use and largely in cattle 2-4

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

into the BRWRA (Table 2-2) and later, if necessary and feasible, up to five family groups into the backup WSWRA (Fig. 2-3; Table 2-3). Reproduction in the wild would increase the populations to approximately the recovery area goals under each reintroduction alternative. Wolves will be released into the primary recovery zone and allowed to disperse into the secondary recovery zone. The recovery objective of the alternative is to re-establish 100 wild wolves distributed over more than 5,000 mi* by about the year 2005, consistent with the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. The FWS projects that the population will eventually fluctuate near this level as result of natural processes, such as intra-specific aggression and changes in prey abundance and vulnerability, and management actions, such as problem wolf control and translocation. The FWS and its cooperators will monitor, research, evaluate, and actively manage the wolves, including translocating or removing wolves that disperse outside the wolf recovery areas or that cause significant conflicts. The FWS will designate the released wolves and their progeny as one “nonessential experimental” population under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 USC sec. 1539(j). Reintroduction will be accomplished through “soft releases” (see the Soft Release Approach section, above). This will be done in cooperation with various agencies. The U.S. Forest Service (for the BRWRA) and the U.S. Army (if the WSWRA is used) will be the primary land managing agencies involved. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has developed a Cooperative Reintroduction Plan that outlines the Department’s potential involvement as joint managers, with the FWS, of wolves on the Arizona side of the BRWRA (Groebner et al. 1995). The plan is consistent with the FWS’s Preferred Alternative, with some additional ideas that are highlighted herein. It will be considered as a subset of this alternative pertaining just to the Arizona side. (It should be noted that future FWS cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department would not preclude similar cooperation with other state, federal, tribal, and local agencies in Arizona or New Mexico.) Reintroduction will occur under management plans that allow dispersal by the new wolf populations from the immediate release areas (“primary recovery zones”) into designated adjacent areas

under the full endangered status alternative (Ah. C) in this FEIS. In sum, the Blue Range and WSMR areas each possess distinct positive and negative features for wolf recovery. This FEIS analyzes reintroduction in both areas. Since issuing the DEIS, the FWS has designated the BRWRA as the preferred reintroduction location, with the WSWRA as a back-up to be used only if necessary and feasible. This focussing of the Preferred Alternative on the BRWRA is fundamentally due to the Interdisciplinary Team and the FWS determining that a strong biological preference exists for the BRWRA. It provides a large, multiple-species, native prey base (white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, javelina), abundant well-distributed water, and a large area for wolves to colonize following the initial release. It is also known to have been prime wolf habitat historically. Only it is projected to achieve the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan goal of 100 wild wolves. While evidence exist of wolves having been on the WSWRA, it was probably not prime wolf habitat and could not now support an independently viable population.

Alternatives Alternative A (Preferred Alternative): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to reintroduce Mexican wolves, classified as nonessential experimental, into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. Wolves will be released into the primary recovery zone and allowed to disperse into the secondary recovery zone. If feasible and necessary to achieve the recovery objective of 100 wolves, a subsequent reintroduction of wolves into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area will be conducted. Actions Associated with Alternative In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce family groups of captive-raised Mexican wolves into the primary recovery zone of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) (Fig. 2-2; areas defined precisely in Box 2-1, Geographic Boundaries). The FWS will gradually release up to 15 family groups 2-5

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Figure 2-2. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.

%

IG

QUEMADO

7

PRIMARY ’ RECOVERY ZONE C FTON YTL

ILA

LORDSBURG

0 c

I

SCALE IN MILES

2-6

DATI L

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Box 2- 1. Geographic boundaries for Mexican wolf reintroduction. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWlU): all of the Apache National Forest and all of the Gila National

Forest (Fig. 2-2). BRWR4 primary recovery zone: the area within the Apache National Forest bounded on the north by the Apache-Greenlee County line; on the east by the Arizona-New Mexico State line; on the south by the San Francisco River (eastern half) and the southern boundary of the Apache National Forest (western half); and on the west by the Greenlee-Graham County line (San Carlos Apache Reservation boundary) (Fig. 2-2).

BRWRA secondary recovery zone: the remainder of the BRYVRA not in the primary recovery zone (Fig. 2-2). White Sands Wolf Recovery Area (WSWRA): all of the White Sands Missile Range, the White Sands

National Monument, and the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, and the area adjacent and to the west of the Missile Range bounded on the south by the southerly boundary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Jornada Experimental Range and the northern boundary of the New Mexico State University Animal Science Ranch; on the west by the New Mexico Principal Meridian; on the north by the Pedro Armendaris Grant boundary and the Sierra-Socorro County line; and on the east by the western boundary of the Missile Range (Fig. 2-3). WSWRA primary recovery zone: the area within the White Sands Missile Range bounded on the north by

the road from former Cain Ranch Headquarters co Range Road 16, Range Road 16 to its intersection with Range Road 13, Range Road 13 to its intersection with Range Road 7; on the east by Range Road 7; on the south by U.S. Highway 70; and on the west by the Missile Range boundary (Fig. 2-3). WSWRA secondary recovery zone: the remainder of the WSWRA not within the primary recovery zone

(Fig. 2-3). Mexican wolf experimental population area: the portion of Arizona lying north of Interstate Highway 10

and south of Interstate Highway 40; the portion of New Mexico lying north of Interstate Highway 10 in the west, north of the New Mexico-Texas boundary in the east, and south of Interstate Highway 40; and that portion of Texas lying north of US Highway 62/180 and south of the Texas-New Mexico boundary (Fig. 2-4).

2-7

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-2. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification (Alternative A). Recovery area goal:

100 wolves occupying a total area of 5,000 mi’; based on Mexican Wolf Recovery -Team (1982). 1997 1998

1999

2000

No. released successfully”

10

10

10

10

No. surviving (from prev. year)

--

7

14

No. pups bomb

0

5

10% control loss

1

25% other lossesc

2001

2002

2003

2004

4

0

0

0

0

23

35

45

55

68

83

10

20

30

40

50

60

75

2

3

5

7

9

I1

13

16

2

6

8

13

17

21

26

32

40

Total wolves (end of year)

7

14

23

35

45

55

68

83

102

No. packsd

1

2

4

7

7

11

13

16

20

No. breeding pairs’

1

2

4

6

8

10

12

15

18

Area occupied’ (100 mi2)

3

5

10

18

23

28

33

40

50

2005

” Average of five pups per htter based on McBride (I 980) ‘ “0th lossrs” includes wolves that die, leave, disappear. or are removed from the recovery area for .~ny reasom hevdes control; adapted from rates m Phillips (1992). i!SFWS (1993a). and Mcch (1970). ’ AXI agr pack sue of five based on Hednarz ( 1988). ’ MO&~ pack.5 contall, one breeding pair; assumed that 10% of packs do not have a successful breeding pair. ’ Average pack terrlrory size of 250 mi’ based 011 Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1982) and Mech (1970). Not all land wthm a terrttory habitat.

SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (19 93a).

2-8

IS

wltablc yrar-rou11~1

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Figure 2-3. White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.

SWORRO

CO

\

\ \ \ \ \ \ \

/

S A N D S

SIERRA CO. ---_-__ OONA

ANA

co.

WOLF RECOVERY - AREA BOUNDARY

LAS CRUCES 0

1 5

I

I

SCALE IN MILES

PRIMARY RECOVERY ZONE

2-9

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3.

Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the White Sands

Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification (Alternative A). Recovery

area goal: 20 wolves occupying the typical habitat area of approximately 1,000 mil, adapted from Bednarz

(1389).

No. released successfully

7

3

No. surviving (from prev. year)

--

6

13

No. pups bomb

0

5

10

5% control loss

0

1

1

20% other lossesc

1

4

5

Total wolves (end of year)

6

13

20

No. packsd

1

2

4

No. breeding pairse

1

2

4

Area occupiedf (100 mi2)

2.5

5.0

10.0

” lnitnlly, about 10 captive-raised wolves annually will be released, but three of these are assumed CO quickly die, disappear, disperse from the recovery area, or reqwre re~aptunng for .I variety of reasons, and not to concribure to population growth. Fewer wolves will be released in 1999 CO minimize overshooting of rhe popularion goal.

‘I Awrage

of five pups per littrr based on McBride (1980)

‘ “Orher kases” includes w&w that die, leave, disappear, or are removed from the recovery xca for any reasons bcsldrs control; adaptrd from TJCCS ln I’h11l1~~~ (1992), USFWS (19934, and Me& (1970).

” Average pack sin- of five based on Brdnarz (1988).

’ Mo\t packs contain one breeding par; assumed that 10% of packs do not have a succrssful breedmg par

'Average

pack terntory sue of250 miL based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1782) and Mech (1970). Not all land within a territory LS suitable year

round habitat.

SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (1993a).

2-10

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

(“secondary recovery zones”) (Figs 2-2 and 2-3, above). However, the FWS and cooperating agencies will not allow the wolves to establish territories outside these wolf recovery area boundaries unless this occurs on private or tribal lands and the land manager does not object. The FWS would attempt to enter into cooperative management agreements with such landowners regarding control of the wolves. If the land manager objects to the presence of wolves on private or tribal lands, field personnel would recapture and relocate the wolves. The FWS and the cooperating agencies will use a flexible “adaptive management” approach based on careful monitoring, research, and evaluation throughout the release phase. This will include adjusting the numbers actually released according to the needs and circumstances at the time. Initially, to reduce the likelihood of wolf dispersal onto the White Mountain Apache and San Carlos Apache reservations to the west, the wolf releases will occur on the eastern side of the BRW’RA primary recovery zone, close to the Arizona/New Mexico border. The FWS will encourage and support the formation of a citizen advisory committee, or similar management oversight body, to assist the FWS and cooperating agencies in responding to local concerns. Initial release stock will be “surplus” Mexican wolves designated by the SSP Management Group from the U.S. captive population. A surplus wolf is one whose loss or removal will not significantly adversely affect the genetic or demographic make-up of the population (Siminski 1994a). Thus, death of one or more surplus wolves would not jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies. Use of surplus wolves will allow the FWS to designate the wild population as nonessential experimental. This provides greater management flexibility than if released wolves retain their endangered status and associated ESA protections. Prior to any releases, the FWS will determine whether recolonization has occurred or appears likely to occur within the U.S. portion of the subspecies’ former range. Depending on its extent, natural recolonization could contribute to meeting the recovery objective and could, but would not necessarily, eliminate the need for releases of captive animals into one or both of the designated wolf recovery areas (see USFWS 1994~). The following future circumstances will be considered in decision-making about using the

WSWRA subsequent to initial releases in the BRWRA: .

whether using the WSWRA, in combination with the BRWRA, is necessary to achieve the recovery objective of re-establishing 100 wolves; that is, it would be used if it appears that the initial introduction in the BRWRA will not achieve a total population of 100 wolves,

.

whether, based on future research, it appears that the WSWRA deer herd could support a wolf population that would contribute to meeting the recovery objective, and

.

other future circumstances that could affect the feasibility of using the WSWRA, such as the FWS wolf program budget, management concerns, future military uses of the missile range, and so on.

If both areas are eventually used, wolves could be translocated between the two areas as needed to maintain overall population viability and to accomplish other management objectives. If feasible, recaptured wild wolves from one recovery area, rather than captive-raised wolves, could be used to stock the other area to increase the likelihood of success (Fritts 1992). A key aspect of this proposal is the necessity of adequate funding for monitoring and research to study the impacts of the action and to determine whether the Mexican wolf can survive in the modern Southwest (see Appendix B - Projected Implementation Costs). Progress will be continuously evaluated. The FWS will prepare periodic progress reports, detailed annual reports, and full evaluations after three and five years. The full evaluations will include recommendations regarding continuation or termination of the reintroduction effort and whether, and how, to use the WSWRA. Decision-making criteria that the FWS and cooperating agencies will consider will include those recommended by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in its Cooperative Reintroduction Plan, which also calls for full evaluation of the initial “experimental” phase after three years (Groebner et al. 1995):

2-11

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

whether the wolves have successfully established home ranges within the designated wolf recovery area,

Supplemental releases of similar numbers of wolves will be conducted, if necessary, for the following four years; thereafter, only reproduction in the wild will drive the population’s growth. Growth projections are set forth in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 (for the WSWRA, if used), above; these provide guidance but do not predict exact outcomes. The projections assume that about one-third of the wolves released each year quickly die, disappear, disperse from the recovery area, or otherwise require recapturing, and do not contribute to growth of the population (USFWS 1993a, Phillips 1992). Thus, the average number of wolves successfully released annually is initially projected to be ten for the BRWRA (seven for the WSWRA). Fewer wolves may be released in later years to avoid overshooting the recovery objective, depending on actual reproduction and mortality rates. The Preferred Alternative will be completed when the population reaches the recovery objective of 100 wolves over 5,000 mi*; this is projected to take nine years (Table 2-2). Moderately high annual control losses and other losses-35% total-are expected. The depredation control and other losses are relatively high due to the presence of livestock and the public in the BRWRA. The FWS or cooperating agencies will monitor the wolves continually. The schedule and numbers of wolves released will be adjusted in accordance with the actual population growth. Upon achievement of the recovery objective, the FWS will develop and implement detailed long-term plans for sustainable management of the re-established wolves. The recovery area goals approximate the expected number of wolves that these areas can reasonably support. The goals may need revision if field evidence shows they are not realistic. The FWS projects that the wolf populations will eventually fluctuate above and below these goals through a combination of natural processes and management actions. The FWS will actively manage against expansion of the population beyond the designated wolf recovery areas.

whether the reintroduced wolves reproduce successfully in the wild, whether the numbers and vulnerability of prey are adequate to support wolves, whether the livestock depredation control program is effective, whether significant threats to human safety have occurred, whether wolf mortality is substantially higher than expected, see Tables 2-2 and 2-3, whether effective cooperation with other agencies and the public is occurring, and whether combined agency funds and staff are adequate to carry out needed management, monitoring, and research. Monitoring and research efforts will assist in determining the answers to these questions. The criteria may need to be updated in the light of changes in circumstances after the initial releases (Groebner et al. 1995). For example, concern has been expressed that current forest and woodland health and ecological trends in the BRWRA will result in decreased viability of prey populations needed to support recovery levels of wolves (Hayes 1995). If the initial releases fail, further releases would be inappropriate unless the cause of ftilure is identified and remedied. Projected Population Growth-In the BRWRA, three family groups will be released in the first year. (Arizona’s Reintroduction Plan calls for releasing only two pairs annually in the BRWRA; the FWS proposes three pairs because dispersal into the New Mexico side of the BRWRA is anticipated.) Each pair is projected to have, on average, three pups surviving at the time of release (or following the first whelping season after release). Thus, the average family group size will be five and the initial releases would amount to an average of 15 individuals.

Geographic Boundaries.-The Preferred Alternative involves the following geographic designations: wolf recovery area, primary recovery zone, secondary recovery zone, and experimentalpopulation area (Fig. 2-4). Box 2-l and Appendix C, the proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule, give precise 2-12

Figure 2-4. M exican Wolf Geographic Boundaries.

ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE

EXT'ERIMENTAL -POPULATION AREA BOUNDARY

WHITE SANDS WOLF RECOVERY AREA

SCALE

IN MILES

PRMARY

RECOVERY

ZONES

SECONDARY RECOVERY

lAIIlz3

POTENTIAL (Alternative

NATURAL D Only)

\

ZONES

RECOLONlZATiON

AREAS

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

boundaries of these areas and zones. These designations carry no public or private land use restrictions, per se. Also, ESA critical habitat shall not be designated within the experimental population area under the FWS’s proposed nonessential experimental classification, 16 USC sec. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii). Wolf recovery will be supported only in the designated wolf recovery areaS (i.e., the BRWRA and possibly the WSWR4). Within these recovery areas, wolves will be released only in the primary recovery zones, but they will be allowed to disperse into the adjacent secondary recovery zones. The chief significance of the experimentalpopulation area is to distinguish the legal status of any wolves that might be found there; wolf recovery is not being proposed and will not be supported throughout the area. Any wolf in this large area will be considered to belong to the nonessential experimental population. The flexible management measures in the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule will apply throughout this area. Wolves found within the experimental population area, but outside of a designated wolf recovery area, will be captured and returned for rerelease or placement into the captive population. Wolves found outside the experimental population area will be presumed to be of wild origin with full endangered status under the ESA unless evidence such as a radio-collar or identification mark establishes that it is a member of the experimental population. In such a case the wolf would retain its experimental nonessential status pending recapture. The southern boundary of the experimental area was established to the north of the most suitable areas for possible natural recolonization from Mexico. Thus, if wolves actually did recolonize from Mexico--a very speculative possibility-they would retain their full endangered status unless they travelled north into the experimental population area (see Ah. D).

pens constructed within the BRVVRA primary recovery zone. These pens will be separated by several miles. Each pen will occupy less than onehalf acre; field personnel will have temporary housing nearby.’ Land managers will restrict public access and “disturbance-causing land use activities” (defined in the Glossary, Appendix G, including some specific exemptions), up to a one mile radius around the release pens only while wolves are in the pens. Human contact will be further reduced and the wolves’ diet will be converted to natural prey items, such as road-killed deer, elk, javelina, jackrabbits, and cottontails. Wolves will remain in the pens for up to six months to acclimate to the area. Then, the field managers will open the pens and allow the wolves to leave and return at will. Managers will place carcasses (e.g., roadkills) of natural prey in the vicinity until they determine that the wolves have the predatory skill to obtain an adequate food supply on their own. In the event that a wolf selected for release and placed in the acclimation pens becomes unsuitable or dies, it may be replaced by another animal from the captive population. In this case the wolf may be released later, after sufficient acclimation time has elapsed. Releases conducted during subsequent years will follow procedures similar to those described above with refinements based on previous release experiences. If wolves have established a territory in the vicinity of a release pen, then the pen will be moved to a location outside known wolf territories for releases in subsequent years. If the WSWRA is used, release procedures will be similar to those described above. Monitoring and Research.--Prior to placement in release pens the adult wolves will receive permanent identification marks and radio collars. Pups will receive surgically implanted transmitters prior to release. Field managers will recapture them when they are large enough to be fitted with neck collars. Wild-born wolves will be captured, given a permanent identification mark, and radio-collared for at least the first five years of the project. The FWS and cooperating agencies will monitor movements, behavior, population status, and well-

R&use Procedures,-The FWS will select release stock from its captive wolf management facility on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge or other captive management facilities. In the winter of 1996-1997-or later if circumstances compel a delay -the FWS will place the selected pairs in separate

‘The FWS and the Forest Service, for the BRWRA, and the U.S. Army, for the WSWRA if used, and other cooperating agencies, will jointly designate precise release pen sites within the primary recovery zones. The FWS and these agencies will prepare an environmental assessment under NEPA on potential site-specific impacts associated with these facilities. 2-14

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

being of released wolves through radio tracking (ground and aerial), field observations, obtaining sighting reports from the public, and other methods. Food habits, kill rates, pack size, litter size, territory size, and other aspects of wild Mexican wolf life will be studied. The FWS and cooperating agencies will bear the costs of this monitoring program at least through five years beyond the achievement of the recovery objective; cooperative research agreements with qualified institutions may be negotiated. Management.-A federal regulation will designate the population to be released as experimental and nonessential to the continued existence of the subspecies. This Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule will delineate the precise geographic boundaries (see Box 2- 1, above) and prescribe the protective measures and management authority that apply. No formal ESA Section 7 consultation would be required regarding potential impacts of land uses on nonessential experimental Mexican wolves. Any harm to wolves resulting solely from habitat modification caused by authorized uses of public lands, that is, not in violation of the closure provisions or other provisions regarding take or harassment, would be a legal take under the Proposed Rule. Any habitat modification occurring on private or tribal lands would not constitute illegal take. Based on evidence from other areas, the FWS does not believe that wolf recovery requires major changes to currently authorized land uses. The main management goals are to protect wolves from disturbance during vulnerable periods, minimize illegal take, and remove individuals from the wild population that depredate or otherwise cause significant problems. The complete proposed experimental population rule, as published in the Federal Register on May 1, 1996, is in Appendix C. In summary, the Proposed Rule provides: .

No one will be in violation of the ESA for unavoidable and unintentional take of a wolf within the Mexican wolf experimental population area when the take is incidental to a legal activity, such as driving, trapping, and military testing or training activities, and is promptly reported. Anyone may take a wolf in defense of human life. 2-15

.

No private or tribal land use restrictions will be imposed for wolf recovery without the concurrence of the private owner or tribal government. On public lands, public access and disturbance-causing land use activities (defined in Appendix G) may be temporarily restricted within a one-mile radius around release pens, and around active dens between March 1 and June 30 and around active wolf rendezvous sites (defined in Appendix G) between June 1 and September 30.

.

On public lands allotted for grazing, livestock owners and their designated agents: (1) may harass wolves for purposes of scaring them away from livestock provided the harassment is promptly reported, and (2) may be allowed to take wolves actually engaged in attacking livestock.

.

Permission for private parties to take wolves on public grazing lands must meet all of these conditions: 1) six or more breeding wolf pairs occur in the BRWRA, or three or more breeding wolf pairs occur in the WSWRA (if used); 2) previous livestock loss or injury by wolves has been documented by an authorized FWS, ADC, or state employee and efforts to control the offending wolves have been undertaken but have not succeeded; 3) physical evidence exists that an attack occurred at the time of the take; and 4) the take is promptly reported.

.

On private or tribally-owned land, regardless of location, property owners and livestock owners and their designated agents may harass wolves near livestock, people, buildings, facilities, pets, or other domestic animals at any time and may take wolves attacking livestock under more liberal conditions than those applicable to public grazing lands. That is, such take can occur regardless of the number of recovered wolf pairs in the area and no requirement exists for government agencies to have completed their efforts to take the depredating wolves. However, physical evidence that an attack occurred at the time of the take must be

Alternatives present and the take must be promptly reported. .

staff will conduct monitoring and research, trapping, depredation investigation, mortality investigation, control, and other on-the-ground actions. A citizen advisory committee, or similar body, could also participate in management decisions.

Any FWS-authorized person may capture and remove or translocate reintroduced wolves consistent with a FWS-approved management plan or special management measure. These may include wolves that: (1) prey on livestock, (2) attack domestic animals other than livestock on private land, (3) impact game populations in ways which may inhibit further wolf recovery (impact defined in Appendix G), (4) prey on state-endangered desert bighorn sheep on the White Sands Missile Range (if used), (5) are considered problem wolves (defined in Appendix G), are a nuisance, or endanger themselves by their presence in a military impact area, or (6) are necessary for research.

*

The FWS does not intend to change the “nonessential experimental” designation to “essential experimental” or “endangered” and the FWS does not intend to designate critical habitat for the Mexican wolf.

.

Any taking of a wolf contrary to the experimental population rule may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.

Including the Proposed Action

Mitigation Measures

Contiol of Problem Wolves-. The experimental population rule provisions, summarized above, are largely measures to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposal by providing the greatest degree of management flexibility and the leasr impact on private activity consistent with wolf recovery. One mitigation measure is the allowance of non-injurious harassment of wolves and, in limited situations, killing them if they are observed attacking livestock, although the actual number of observed attacks is expected to be small. The FWS or other authorized agencies will respond to all incidents of wolf-caused depredation with concerted efforts to prevent additional depredation. Captured problem or nuisance wolves will be returned to captivity or to a distant location in the wolf recovery area, pursuant to the cooperative management plan. If both recovery areas are in use, wolves from the BRWRA could be translocated to the WSWR4, and vice versa. The FWS will permanently remove from the wild or, as a last resort, euthanize any wolves exhibiting a consistent pattern of livestock depredation (three or more confirmed kills within one year in primary wolf recovery zones and two or more in other areas). A wolf would be euthanized only after a determination by the FWS that it had no further value to the recovery program; euthanasia would be done in accordance with the guidelines of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA 1993), when feasible. Resolving depredation problems through changes in livestock husbandry will be explored with ranchers. On private property, after two confirmed incidents within one year of nuisance behavior or the killing or injuring of pets or other domestic animals by wolves, efforts will be undertaken to deter this behavior. The FWS will move captured offending wolves to a distant location. The FWS will permanently remove from the wild or euthanize any wolves exhibiting a consistent pattern of nuisance behavior (three or more incidents per year). This model of active, professional, management of

The release process involves many uncertainties. Wolves may die, surviving mates may need to be recaptured and paired with another mate or returned to the captive population, or wolves may disperse out of the recovery areas and need to be retrieved (Phillips 1992). Post-release management to address these uncertainties will follow an interagency cooperative management plan. This will include working with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet the requirements of its Cooperative Reintroduction Plan and working with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. A wolf management team representing the FWS, the Game and Fish agencies, and other cooperating agencies will determine whether particular actions are necessary. The interagency management plan will cover issues such as release pen siting, veterinary management, depredation control, capture and relocation, research, radio tracking, aerial overflights, prey monitoring, and prey habitat management. Field 2-16

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

existence of this private mitigation fund, but recognizes it has been a very valuable aid to wolf recovery. The FWS will undertake a cooperative effort to improve public understanding of the biology, ecology, history, management, and status of Mexican wolves. In particular, residents of the primary and secondary recovery zones will receive briefings and regular updates. Participation of a citizen advisory committee will be encouraged and supported. The FWS and cooperating agencies will work with ranchers to assess actual depredation impacts and to develop methods to mitigate potential impacts through changes in livestock husbandry. These could include: use of horned cattle, regular checks of herds, bull management so that calves are born at about the same time, calving in confined pastures, herd concentration methods, herd protection methods, and removal or burial of livestock carcasses (Bjorge and Gunson 1985). Some of the suggested methods likely would be impractical for open range situations. In small pastures, the use of livestock guarding dogs or other guard animals may deter wolf attacks (Coppinger and Coppinger, in press). The proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule also provides for controlling wolves to prevent unacceptable impacts on ungulate herds that might inhibit wolf recovery and to avoid impacts on New Mexico’s state-endangered desert bighorn sheep population on the WSWRA (if used). This herd merits special protection due to low population growth caused by long-standing disease problems, although wolves likely will not take many of these steep-terrain animals (Bednarz 1989). Unacceptable impacts on ungulate herds are defined in the Glossary (Appendix G) under “Impact on game populations in ways which may inhibit further wolf recovery.”

depredation has proven feasible in Minnesota and in the northern Rockies; it has demonstrably served in both areas to expeditiously resolve wolf/livestock conflicts (Niemeyer et al. 1994; Paul 1995). Active management in conjunction with public education and information improves local tolerance of wolves. The FWS will attempt to recapture and relocate members of the experimental population that go outside the designated wolf recovery areas. However, the FWS will not routinely recapture and return pack members that make occasional forays outside recovery areas nor will it attempt to do so for reported but unconfirmed lone wolves, except when livestock depredation occurs. Packs that establish territories on public land outside the designated wolf recovery areas will be captured and returned to a recovery area or to captivity. If wolves move onto private or tribal lands outside the recovery areas the FWS will attempt to develop management actions in cooperation with the land manager, including recapture and return if requested by the land owner or tribal government. Field staff will not work on private or tribal land without permission. Other Mitigation.-As indicated, the FWS will condition the captive wolves prior to release. This will emphasize orienting them to native prey and habitat and may include aversive conditioning to both humans and livestock. The actual releases will occur in remote portions of the recovery areas where the fewest potential conflicts with human uses will occur. A private depredation compensation fund exists to cover the costs of livestock losses. The Defenders of Wildlife, a national membership non-profit corporation, has over $112,000 in a fund to be applied to wolf depredation in both the northern Rocky Mountains and the Southwest (Schlickeisen 1993; Defenders of Wildlife 1994). The fund pays 100% of the market value of livestock lost to confirmed wolf kills as determined by a responsible wolf management official. It also pays 50% for unconfirmed losses of livestock when wolves are in the area and evidence exists that a depredation occurred. From 1987 through 1994, a total of about $I 5,OOO-around $2,000 per year-was paid out of this fund to 17 ranchers in Montana. During this period the wolf population there averaged 44 animals. The FWS does not guarantee the future

Summary of Alternative A In conclusion, the following actions are called for to implement Alternative A: . . .

. 2-17

expand the captive Mexican wolf population, select and acclimate wolves for release, adopt the final rule designating the population as experimental nonessential and designating the experimental population area, conduct public information and education efforts and support a citizen advisory

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

committee, develop an interagency cooperative management plan, set up release pens in the BRWRA and place wolves in them, implement field management, monitoring, research, and problem wolf control, conduct annual releases of adequate numbers of family groups of wolves to lead to achievement of the recovery objective of 100 wolves, recapture and return wolves that disperse beyond the BRWRA boundary, consider the necessity and feasibility of using the WSWRA, and at three and five years, fully evaluate whether the reintroduction effort should continue or terminate.

The FWS will designate the population as nonessential experimental under the ESA. The FWS will adopt basically the same Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule as under Ah. A (Appendix C), but it would apply to the smaller areas. The FWS and its cooperators will follow the same release, monitoring, and management procedures as under Ah. A, but on a smaller scale due to the smaller areas involved. Control will be accomplished through a combination of aggressive monitoring and management methods to promptly recapture wolves that leave the primary recovery zones. Wolves could be translocated between the two areas as needed. In the BRWRA primary recovery zone, because of the smaller area involved (1,000 mi2), the FWS will release only two family groups annually, totalling approximately ten wolves (Table 2-4), rather than three family groups released annually under Ah. A. High annual control mortality and other losses of wolves are expected due to the intensive management required to prevent dispersal. Alternative B in the BRWRA will be completed when 20 wolves occupy the 1,000 mi* primary recovery zone. The population and area goals likely would be met after five years, in 2001. In the WSWRA primary recovery zone, annual mortality and other losses of wolves are expected to be somewhat higher than under Ah. A due to the intensive management required to prevent dispersal. Alternative B in the WSWRA will be completed when 14 wolves occupy the roughly 720 mi* of suitable Mexican wolf habitat in the primary recovery zone (Bednarz 1989). The population and area goals likely would be met after three years, in 1999. These population projections provide guidance but do not predict exact outcomes. Neither subpopulation would be considered independently viable and neither would alone, nor combined, meet the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan objective.

Alternative B: Reintroduction of Mexican wolves, classified as nonessential experimental, into both the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area and the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area primary recovery zones. Wolves dispersing from the primary recovery zones will be captured and returned to the primary zones or captivity. Actions Associated With Alternative

In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce family groups of captive-raised Mexican wolves into both the BRWRA and the WSWRA primary recovery zones and actively prevent the populations from expanding beyond these zones (Fig.s 2-2 and 2-3, above). In the BRWRA primary recovery zone the FWS will release about eight family groups over four years with the goal of reaching a population of 20 wild wolves by 2001 (Table 2-4). In the WSWRA primary recovery zone the FWS will release about four family groups over two years with the goal of reaching a population of 14 wild wolves by 1999 (Table 2-5). The total recovery objective will be 34 wolves. The BRWRA primary recovery zone represents only about one-fifth of the area wolves would occupy in the whole BRWRA under Ah. A. The WSWRA primary recovery zone represents about two-thirds of the area wolves would occupy in the whole WSWRA under Alt. A. 2-18

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-4. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification with restricted dispersal (Ah. B). Recovery area goal: 20 wolves occupying the primary recovery zone, area of approximately 1,000 mi’; adapted from Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1982). 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

No. released successfully”

7

7

7

7

0

No. surviving (from prev. year)

--

4

7

11

17

No. pups bomb

0

0

5

10

15

10% control loss

1

1

2

3

3

30% other 1osseC

2

3

6

8

9

Total wolves (end of year)

4

7

11

17

20

No. packsd

--

1

2

3

4

No. breeding pairse

--

1

2

3

4

Area occuuied’ ( 100 mi2)

--

3

5

8

10

A Inirlally, abour ten c+ve-raised wolves annually ~111 be released, but three of these are assumed to quickly die, disappear, disperse from the recovery area. or require recapturing for a variety of reasons, and nor to contribute to population growth.

’ Average of five pups per littrr bzsed on McBride (10X0) ’ “Other losses” Includes v.&rs thar die, leave, disappear. or are removed from the recovery area for any reasons besldrs control; adapted from races in Phillips (lW2), USFWS (19’)3a), and Me& (1970) d Average pack sue of five based on Bednarz (1788)

’ Most p.~cks contain one breeding pair; assumed that 10% of pa& do not have a successful breeding

f Averagt

pair,

pack territory size of 250 mi’ based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1782) and Mech (1770). Not all land within a territory is suitable year

round habirat.

SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (1993a).

2-19

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Table 2-5. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification with restricted dispersal (Ah. B). Recovery area goal: 14 wolves occupying the primary recovery zone area of approximately 720 mi’; adapted from Bednarz (1989). 1997

1998

1999

No. released successfully”

7

7

0

No. surviving (from prev. year)

--

5

12

No. pups bomb

0

5

10

5% control loss

0

1

1

25% other lossesc

2

4

6

Total wolves (end of year)

5

12

15

No. paAd

1

2

3

No. breeding pairse

1

2

3

Area occupiedf (100 mi2)

2.5

5.0

7.5

‘I Inlcially, about ren captive-raised wolves annually will be released, but three of these ate assumed to quickly die, disappear. disperse from the recovery area, or require recapturing for a variery of reasons, and not to contrlbute to populatlon growth.

” A~eragr of five pups per litter based on McBride (1980). ‘ “< )ther losses” Includes wolves chat die, leave, disappear, or are removed from the recovery area for any reasons besides control; adapted from rates in Phillips

(1992). USFWS (1993a). and Mech (1970). ” Average pack size of five habed on Bednarz (1988)

’ Most packs contain one breeding pair; assumed that 10% of packs do not have a successful breeding pair.

’ Average pack territory size of 250 mi’ based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1982) and Mech (1970). Not all land within a territory is suitable year. round habitar.

SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (1993a).

2-20

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Wolves will receive fhll protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation will be the same as under Ah. A. The scale of the mitigation efforts will be reduced due to the smaller areas involved. However, a high intensity of management will be needed to prevent wolves from dispersing beyond the primary recovery zones into adjacent suitable habitat.

Actions Association with Alternative

In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce family groups of captive-raised Mexican wolves under their current full-endangered status into the primary recovery zone of the BRWRA in east-central Arizona, following the same release procedures as under Alt.s A and B. The FWS will gradually release up to 15 family groups into the BRWRA. No releases will occur in the WSWRA.2 The recovery objective of the alternative is to re-establish 100 wild wolves distributed over more than 5,000 mi* by about the year 2002, consistent with the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (Table 2-6). The FWS and its cooperators will monitor and conduct research on the wolves, but they will not actively manage them. The full-endangered status allows unrestricted dispersal; that is, the FWS will neither restrict the population to the designated BRWRA, as under Alt. A, nor to the smaller primary recovery zone, as under Ah. B. No attempts will be made to recapture or return wolves with the possible exception of individual depredators. The wolves will have the full protection against “take” by humans provided by the ESA. Anyone who would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” against a Mexican wolf will be violating the ESA, 16 USC sec.s 1532( 19) and 1538. The only exceptions will be takings to protect human life or by special permit “for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species,” 16 USC sec. 1539(a)(l)(A). This is the same “endangered” status that wild Mexican wolves would have if they were to somehow naturally recolonize into the United States from Mexico under Ah. D. The overall rates of mortality and other losses are projected to be lower than under Alt. A in the BRWRA, at 25% (Table 2-6, above). As a result, the population and area goals will be met after six years, three years sooner than under Alt. A. These popula-

Summary of Alternative B In conclusion, the following actions are called for to implement Alternative B: expand the captive Mexican wolf population, select and acclimate wolves for release, adopt the final rule designating the population as experimental nonessential and designating the experimental population area, conduct public information and education efforts and support a citizen advisory committee, develop an interagency cooperative wolf management plan, designate release areas within the BRWRA and WSWRA primary recovery zones, set up release pens, and place wolves in them, conduct annual releases in both areas of adequate numbers of family groups to lead to achievement of the total recovery objective, that is, 34 wolves, implement intensive field management, monitoring, research, and problem wolf control, recapture and return wolves that disperse beyond designated primary recovery zones, and after three and five years, fully evaluate whether the reintroduction effort should continue or terminate. Alternative C: Reintroduction of Mexican wolves, classified as endangered, into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area only. Wolves will be released into the primary recovery zone and unlimited dispersal will be allowed.

‘In the DEIS, Alt. C included reintroduction into the WSWRA as well as into the BRWRA. The Interdisciplinary Team and the FWS decided to drop reintroduction into the WSWRA from Ah. C in this FEIS. 2-21

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Table 2-6. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area with full Endangered Species Act protection (Alternative C).

Recovery area goal: 100 wolves occupying a total area of 5,000 mi’; based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1382).

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

No. released successfulIf

10

10

10

10

4

0

No. surviving (from prev. year)

--

8

17

31

49

70

No. pups bomb

0

5

15

25

40

65

25% all losses‘

2

6

11

17

23

34

Total wolves (end of year)

8

17

31

43

70

101

No. packsd

1

3

6

9

14

20

No. breeding pairse

1

3

5

8

1.7

18

Area occupiedf (100 mi’)

3

8

15

23

33

50

” Axragr ot five pups per litter based UII McBride (1380)

’ “Orher louts” illcLudes wolves rhar die+ leave, disappear, or arc removed from the recovery arca for any reasons bcsldes control; adaprtld fr5,000

No releases; research and support possible natural recolonization

Southeastern Arizona, Southwestern New Mexico, and Big Bend National Park, Texas

No

Endangered (if wolves discovered)

(speculative) SE Ariz. - 30 SWNM-20 Big Bend NP - 5 Total - 55

(speculative) SE Ariz. - 1,500 SW NM - 1,000 Big Bend N P - 250 Total - 2,750

A (Preferred Alternative)

D

Nonessential experimental releases allowing dispersal into secondary recovery zones; BR first, WS back-up

(continued below)

Meets 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan’s Population Objective?

Estimated Years to Reach Area Population Goal

A (Preferred Alternative)

BR - Yes WS-No Together - Yes

BR-9 ws-3

B

WS No BR-No Together - No

Alternative

Estimated Annual Percentage of Established Population Lost to Control and Other Factors ’

Major Land Use Restrictions

Intensity of Wolf Management and Control

BR - 35% WS - 25%

None

Medium

$7,247,000 (over 14 years)

ws-3 BR-5

ws -30% BR - 40%

None

High

$5,890,000 (over 10 years)

BR - Ye\

BR-6

BR - 25%

Some possible

Low

$5,692,000 (over 10 years)

SE Ariz. - No SWNM-No Big Bend NP - No Together - No

Decades (speculative)

Some possible (if wolves discovered)

Low

5 150,000 to $217,000 per year (period indeterminate)

No estimates

Total Estimated Implementation Costd

’ In addition, about one-third of the captive-raised wolves that are released annually are expected to quickly die, disappear, disperse from the recovery area, or to require recapturing for a variety of reasons, and not to become part of the established popularion. ’ See Appendix B for cost accounting.

2-28

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-8. Summary of key projected impacts under each alternative. Votes: Chap. 4 provides background for all information summarized here. All impacts in the back-up White Sands Wolf Recovery Area under Alt. A depend on whether the area is L&. This table cmphasizcs quantifiable adverse impacts and is not a cost-benefit summary. Monetary lossc\ lollars.

.IIK III

I

‘)‘J-t

Key: BR = Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area; WS = White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.

Alternative

A (Preferred Alt.) -

-

B

Annual lost value of hunting (low to high range)*

Annual lost hunter expenditures in region (low to high range)*

Number of cattle killed annually (low to high range)

13R: 4,Hor)- 1 O,(lOO fewer tfcc~-: 1,2OO- 1,900 fewer elk

BK: .%X-i60 fewer deer: 120-200 f&wer elk

HR: $716,800$1,336,60(1

HR: $579, IOUs 1,079,lOO

f3R: I -i/i

K’S: 1.200-3.000 ~CWL~I deer

WS: 1 O-24 fewer decl

ws: $3,000-$7,100

ws: $2.900-57,000

WS: II.0 I -l)..i

HR: ‘970- I ,OUO fewer d cer; 230-150 fewer elk

BR: 5?- 1 10 fewer deer; 24-33 fewer elk

BR: $123,100$214,800

RR: $58.200-

BR: 0.03-l

\-Q’S: 760-2.009

WS: 5 1 I fewer deet

ws: $1,500-%3,300

WS: % 1.500-$3,200

ws: 0

RR, 3,70&8,X00 fewer deer; H ‘O- I,7011 fewer elk

BR: 140-480 fewer deer; 90- 150 fewer elk

RR: $582,800$1,119,200

BR: $470,700X902,‘OO

Pll My reading of the literature does not agree with his. Regardless of the accuracy of the inbreeding estimates for the captive group, most conservation geneticists are pragmatists, and the papers he quoted do not say that animals should never be reintroduced if they have inbreeding coefficients above some threshold. (SoulC)

Parker does not include in his citations those that contradict his apparently negative response. In addition, careful reading of some of the studies he does cite show they do not completely support that response. (Ames) The literature that Parker cites recognizes that with a smaller genetic base there are more barriers to success, but none of these papers states that a population with the founder base of the Mexican wolf is unsuitable for reintroduction. (Chambers)

This discussion relies on very theoretical and unproven considerations and assumes that no outbreeding would ever take place. (Mech) The Wayne et al. (1991) study, of which I am a coauthor, made no such pronouncements about reintroductions. (Mech) K-6

Response to Dennis Parker

Review Comments:

The use of hyperbole about “the entirety of journal published and peer reviewed work pertaining to Gray wolf genetics and limited founder population viability” detracts from any serious argument. It is valid that small populations with limited founder representation have lower chances of long term survival but it is also valid that many small founder events have become viable, e.g., island colonization.

The statement is correct; however, Dr. Carrera has yet to confirm the existence of a wild wolf in Mexico. (Parsons) Several errors exist, however, in Parker’s presentation. h-4

(SpevaN General Heading: Can inbreeding questions be resolved by the addition of ASDM-GR line and Aragon Zoo line wolves to the official captive Mexican wolf breeding program?

From Parker’s discussions of wolf genetics, I cannot conclude, as he does, that reintroduction will not conserve the species. (Mehlhop) I think that Parker is confusing the term viability with variability in page 3, line 2 and 10. (Hedrick)

Parker’s Statement: “.. . this animal [male founder of the ASDM-GR line] may have actually been a wolf-dog hybrid (Woody, 1986).” . . . ‘Skulls of animals born to the line [ASDM-GR] show definite dog, as well as wild canine characteristics.’ (Woody, 1986).”

Parker’s Statement: “According to the USFWS, . . .

the wild male wolf which was caught with the lone, wild female founder in Mexico, back in 1978, was not the sire of the litter she subsequently birthed in captivity, after all. . . . [this] claim, is objected to by the person who actually caught these wolves in Mexico.”

Review Comments:

This section needs reconsideration in the light of our genetic evidence showing that the two uncertified lines are likely drawn from the same populations as the certified Mexican wolves and have no evidence of a dog ancestry. (Wayne)

Review Comments:

The adult male founder (#4), captured with the pregnant female founder (#5) in March 1978 in Durango, Mexico, never bred in captivity and has never been counted as a founder. The unknown sire of #5’s wild-conceived litter is referred to in the Mexican Wolf Studbook as #9000. This animal could have been male #4, but the point is moot because neither #4 or #9000 made any further contribution to the captive population. Number 5’s wild mate (whoever he is) is one of the founders of the Certified captive population. (Parsons)

What Woody (1986) actually wrote in 1986 was: “The records also recorded undocumented statements that the animal was actually a dog-wolf hybrid.” [emphasis added]; and: “Skulls of animals born to the line show definite dog, as well as, wild canine characteristics. It has not been determined ifthe dog characters in the skulls are due to a dog heritage or the result of successive generations raised in captivity.” [emphasis added] (Parsons)

General Heading: What is the present status of the Mexican wolf in the wild?

The molecular evidence from microsatellite loci (Hedrick, 1995; Garcia-[Moreno] et al., 1995) show no indication that the male founder of the ASDMGR line had ancestry from a dog or a wolf-dog hybrid. (Hedrick)

Parker’s Statement: “In 1994, Dr. Julio Carrera,

who is leading wolf surveys in Mexico, documented wolf howls . . . and recorded reports of wolves . . . .”

The information from the skulls is not as definitive as that from microsatellites [DNA] for determining ancestry from dogs or other taxa. The phenotype of the skull can be strongly influenced by captive K-7

Response

CO

Dennis Parker

Review Comments:

breeding conditions so that the phenotype may appear more doglike due entirely to environmental factors. However, DNA information from microsatellites will not be influenced by any such environmental affects resulting from captivity. In other words, the skull morphology should be given much less weight in determining ancestry than DNA evidence. (Hedrick)

The Aragon lineage has been shown to be characteristic of the Mexican wolf using microsatellites. There is no evidence of dog ancestry from the molecular analysis in the Aragon lineage (Hedrick, 1995; Garcia-[Moreno] et al., 1995). (Hedrick) Recent molecular work by Robert Wayne (USFWS report) establishes the ASDM-GR lineage and the Aragon lineage as Mexican gray wolves with no apparent infusion of other canid genes. USFWS has just uuly 19951 agreed to incorporate these wolves into the captive breeding program. (Spevak)

Parker’s Statement: “... findings of Bogan and Mehlhop (1983), whose taxonomic analysis of ASDM-GR specimens had previously confirmed the presence of pronounced dog tendencies within this line.” Review Comments:

These additional lineages [ASDM-GR and Aragon] are unrelated to the certified lineage and even though there have been a number of incidences of inbreeding in these lineages the offspring produced from their crossing will have a zero inbreeding coef%cient. The initial separation of these lineages may actually have preserved genetic variability. Each lineage would tend to become fixed for different alleles through genetic drift and thereby maintain levels of genetic diversity. (Spevak)

The study by Bogan and Mehlhop (1983) did not “confirm” the presence of pronounced dog tendencies within this breeding line. To the contrary, they state (1983:18) “most captive individuals from both the ASDM and WCSRC lines showed affinities with the southern wolf groups (i.e., C. 1. bailpyz) rather than with coyotes, dogs, or wolves from northern New Mexico.” (Bogan)

overall’

Other Comments by Reviewers:

Bogan and Mehlhop (1983) did not confirm the presence of pronounced dog tendencies within this line, as Parker states. To the contrary, they concluded that eight of nine animals showed affinities to southern wolves and the ninth to northern wolves (youngi) and that none of the ASDM and WCSRC animals showed affinities to dogs or coyotes. In that study, Bogan and Mehlhop presented evidence that captive rearing may have brought about some of the morphological changes detected, such as shortening of the rostrum. (Mehlhop)

The paper appears to have been written not as an objective analysis but to try to discredit the proposed Mexican wolf reintroduction. I say this because the paper misinterprets or misconstrues the literature it cites, and it ignores other salient studies, all in ways that lead to a conclusion against Mexican wolf reintroduction. (Mech) Because of the manner in which the material I am familiar with has been slanted, I feel that the overall paper was more an attempt to support a preconceived notion than to provide a dispassionate analysis. (Mech)

While bones are shaped by environmental factors as well as by genes, DNA analysis now offers a means ro identify an animal by its genes, a factor far less immediately malleable than its bones. (Ames)

I would characterize the document as an “opinion Parker’s Statement: “Verification of this line’s [the Aragon line] lineage is lacking at the present time, and its value as a contributor to the captive Mexican wolf population is currently suspect.”

piece” that would not be suitable in its present form for publication in the scientific literature although I can envision it appearing in a newspaper in some form. (Bogan)

K-8

Response to Dennis Parker

Scientific contradiction or controversy alone is insufficient reason for not proceeding with a carefully planned and reviewed action. (Bogan)

If his real reasons for opposing reintroduction are socio-economic in origin, then he should have written a report on the socio-economics of wolf reintroduction. In my opinion, the biological studies and discussions support reintroduction. (Mehlhop)

As an aside, I noted that of the 16 articles listed under “Citations,” no more than ten could have been peer-reviewed. (Bogan)

It appears that D. Parker has not seen the recent report by Hedrick (1995) of the Genetics Committee of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (P. Hedrick, R. Nowak, [G. Lopez] and M. Ashley) which was based on an extensive review of the published literature and new molecular genetics data from Robert Wayne (UCLA) (Garcia-Moreno et al., 1995) and Steven Fain (USFWS Forensics Laboratory) (Fain et al., 1995). (Hedrick).

Many other assertions of the author that the USFWS “stands alone” or his reference to all scientists having a contrary opinion are incorrect or at best distortions of statements made by one or a few scientists. (Wayne) Clearly, the author is trying to overstate and misstate the support for particular points. (Wayne)

In conclusion, the arguments presented by Parker concerning the genetic aspects of Mexican wolf management and reintroduction are not supported by detailed analysis of the captive population. (Miller)

If peer-reviewed publication is to be a prerequisite for considering new information, I must point out that Parker’s paper does not meet the standard. (Chambers)

K-9